This is a Thesis I wrote for my Constitutional Law in Criminal Justice Class I took online at my schools online site. This thesis scored an A-, largely because it was just a little late. this is a little long but well worth the read time.
Unconstitutional Gun Control Laws
Unconstitutional Gun Control Laws:
Effects of Gun Control on the Second Amendment
and the Unorganized Militia
By
Evan E. Kerr
CJ400DL (NGE)
Constitutional Law in Criminal Justice
“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.”
(United States Constitution, Second Amendment)
The founding fathers amended the Constitution with the Bill of Rights to ensure That the God given rights of the people would not be violated by the Federal Government, It is a reminder to those in power in the government where the power to govern comes from, directly from the consent of the people. Without these reminders, the government becomes a democracy not the constitutional republic that the founding fathers created. Part of this is the fact that the Second Amendment gives the people the last resort of force of arms to overthrow a tyrannical government that has usurped or overstepped the power that “We The People” consent to them. In recent years, starting in 1934, the government began the spiral of laws to control who can and cannot own specific types of weapons under the guise of crime prevention.
Recent Attempts at Gun-control and passage of Past Crime Control laws are constitutional violations of the Second Amendment that do not control violent crime and violent criminal activities involving weapons, but has destabilized American Sovereignty and usurped the power of the people over the Federal Government through the disarmament of the Unorganized Militia. The reason for this research is to show that the almost 40,000 laws of gun control that were passed target only one group of people, the law abiding citizens and not the criminals that violate the laws that were meant to stop them from possessing weapons. These laws are unconstitutional because they are specifically to protect the government from civil uprising in event that the government usurps the power given them by the people. The real reason for gun control is to control the innocent only.
My research method is simply to read documents of the period as to obtain an insight of what the founding fathers meant and current research of the Second Amendment by legal and constitutional scholars of the Second Amendment Meanings. I will read laws and statutes concerning who composes the militia and how the militia is to be equipped. I will read documents and journals on the effectiveness of gun control on violent crime. And most importantly point out as to why gun control destabilizes American sovereignty and usurps the power of the people over the Government.
How well does gun control prevent crime? Has gun control had any direct affect upon the use of firearms in violent crime? How many criminal prosecutions have occurred of criminals in possession of and attempted possession of firearms? How many law-abiding citizens have been denied their rights to own firearms? What do criminals actually think about the gun control laws directed against them? These questions are asked everyday by gun control and anti-gun control advocates.
In the policy study “Taking Aim at Gun Control” by Daniel D. Polsby and Dennis Brennen, they have found that there is and were no “relationship” between the number of privately owned firearms and the amount of crime in the United States. In fact firearm ownership had increased “73 percent – from 122 million to nearly 222 million” (Polsby, Brennen, 1995) In another fact, it was found there was no “relationship between gun control laws and violent crime” Studies that supposedly shown a “negative relationship between gun control and violent crime were plagued by some serious methodological weaknesses.” Such as selective use of data (all studies suffer from this weakness and all studies should be taken with a grain of salt), and a lack of measure of the real impact of gun control laws on the state of gun ownership. (Polsby and Brennen, 1995) These are issues that continue to this day.[i]
The Federal Bureau of investigation has shown there has been a decline in violent crime, however the drop was in swing well before the Brady gun control act was enacted. The FBI Statistics show 55% murders involved firearms in 2005[ii] compare this with 1995 percentage of 68% it shows a clear drop in firearms use[iii], but when you look at the total percentage of weapons used in violent crime overall only comes to 25% in 2005[iv] when compared to 61% in 1995[v] (weapons defined by the FBI’s Uniform Crime report were personal i.e. hands, feet, fists etc. including firearms, which only were used in 30% of the reported crimes)[vi]. The FBI crime statistics also show that gun control had no significant effect in deterring violent crime committed with firearms by criminals. That insight causes one to ask the question: what was the point of gun control again?
In the Brady Act (named for James Brady, a victim in the failed assassination attempt of Ronald Reagan in 1981) Sarah Brady, Lobbyist and chairperson of Handgun Control Inc., stated that the act would not stop violent crime but was an important first step in the creation of a Socialist America.[vii] The simple fact is that all of the Gun Control Acts had no intention of preventing crime; they were in effect means of controlling law-abiding citizens, as the criminal mindset violate laws that are meant to “deter” them. The real purpose of gun control is to stop those from having the means to resist a criminal act or an oppressive government.
In Parker v. D.C. the United States Court of Appeals ruled that the second Amendment is an individual right, and that the cities view that the right to keep and bear arms only applied to the states militia was incorrect and that the laws themselves violated the second amendment. Right of the people to keep and bear arms. Washington D.C. has some of the most draconian gun control laws in America, to the point it was illegal to transport fire arms from one room in a dwelling to another room in the same dwelling without a permit to do so from the chief of the Washington D.C. Police Department. Shelly Parker wanted to keep a functional firearm in her home for defensive purposes due to the neighborhood in which she resided, but the city firearms laws prevented her from doing so. The laws were supposedly in place to prevent criminal activities with firearms, yet the District of Columbia still has one of the highest violent crime rates in our nation involving firearms. This lawsuit has established that gun control laws only control the law abiding and not the criminal element that was the supposed target of the laws.
The pro gun control advocates have also made the argument that the only people that can protect individuals from crime are the police, this is not only wrong but a very dangerous statement that sends the wrong message to the public, as the courts have long held the precedent that the government and its agencies have no duty or obligation to protect any individual, their duty is to protect the public at large. The “no duty to protect individuals” rulings date back to 1856 starting with South v. Maryland[viii] to the most recent ruling in Castle Rock v. Gonzalez[ix], in light of the “no duty to protect an individual” rulings, how does the individual defend themselves and their family against violent criminal predation when the government legislates their means of defense into a criminal act?
In Guns, Crimes, and Freedom by Wayne LaPierre, cites a study conducted in 1985 by professors James Wright and Peter Rossi for the National Institute of Justice. Wright and Rossi interviewed 1800 plus prisoners over a period three years to determine how the predator search out their prey and found that:
· 81 % agreed that “smart criminals” will attempt to find out if a potential victim is armed
· 74% felt that burglars avoided occupied dwellings for fear of being shot
· 57% felt that the typical criminal feared being shot by citizens more than being shot by the police
· 57% percent of “handgun predators had encountered armed citizens
· 39% did not commit a specific crime for fear that the victim was armed
· 69% of “handgun predators” personally knew of other criminals who were scared off or shot at by armed victims
(Wright and Rossi, 1985 as Cited by LaPierre, 1994; p. 26)
What does this information say about criminals in general? This information says that criminals prefer easy targets, which will be safer for them to commit crime. If a potential victim looks like they can resist then the criminal will look for easier prey.
In cities that enacted severe gun control measures, the criminals know that the victims are not able to defend themselves and there would be little or no chance of physical harm to themselves when they commit any crime against their intended prey. The cities that have gun bans also have some of the highest violent crime rates in the United States. As of the 2004 Philadelphia PA, had the highest violent crime rate per 100,000 People at 1,408.3 followed by Washington D.C. at 1,371.2, and Dallas TX., 1,315.7. Out of the three the city with the highest homicide rate is Washington D.C. with at rate of 35.8 per 100,000 Dallas is the lowest of the three at 20.2.[x] Chicago and Washington D.C. have some of the most draconian gun control laws in existence and yet those laws do not do anything to ebb the violent crimes that occur within their cities. This Information also does not take into account of possible defensive uses of violence for self-defense, especially in the case of Dallas TX, which allows concealed carry.
The more effective means to take against violent crime isn’t passing laws that work against the law-abiding citizens; it is enforcing the laws already in place against those that violate those laws. Punishment must be swift and sure against violent criminals, to the point that criminals will become examples to those who think about committing a criminal act. Most importantlallow the law abiding the means to effectively protect themselves from violent criminal acts, which is in most cases firearms. Benjamin Franklin said it best: “Those who give up essential Freedoms in the name of safety, deserve neither freedom nor safety.”
“THE Conventions of a number of 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 government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.”
(Preamble of the first ten Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, 1791)
The founding fathers wrote essays, both pro and con on the new government they were bringing forth to the people of the United States. The federalist papers and the anti federalist papers shown the good and bad points of this new experiment that is the constitutional republic. The federalists argued that the government as it was enough to protect the peoples rights, and the fact the people were armed there was no way the government could take away their god given rights that was established within the Declaration of Independence. The anti federalist view was that if there wasn’t a bill of rights, it was hard for the people to know what those rights were and what their stake in this new nation that the constitution would bring forth, the compromise that got the states to ratify the Constitution of the United States was that the Constitution would be amended with a Bill of Rights.
Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison were the main contributors to the Federalist Papers and Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, and Common men named “Brutus” and “A Democratic Federalist” were contributors to the Anti-federalist papers. Both sides extolled the virtues of citizens being armed in the face of a tyrannical government, because they felt that an armed citizenry is able to resist the usurpations of a government bent on total control of power over the people, it also was meant to keep the United States a sovereign nation, by ensuring that there would enough man power to repel an invasion, Indian attacks on settlements, and to preserve the peace from all enemies foreign and domestic (even if that enemy is our own government). There was to be no standing army in this new nation, the defense of this nation was to solely dependant upon the people responding to the nations call. The federalists and anti federalists considered that a standing army was a threat to liberty, but both had differing ideals in how the militia should be controlled. The anti federalist felt that the militia should not be under federal control, but that the states should be in control of their respective militias as it was established within the Articles of Confederation. An anonymous writer calling himself “A Democratic Federalist” wrote in Anti Federalist No. 29:
“…The absolute command of congress over the militia may be a destructive of public liberty; for under the guidance of an arbitrary government, they may be made the unwilling instruments of tyranny.”
(A Democratic Federalist, 1787)
He felt that the Government would let the power of controlling an army go to there heads and would quickly result in tyranny and despotism that would “quell the liberties” that the people fought long and hard for during the Revolutionary War. In fact he was slightly prophetic in his view of the standing army and in what it would take to maintain that possible army:
“The standing army must be numerous, and as a further support it wilt be the policy of this government to multiply officers in every department, judges, collectors, tax gatherers, excisemen, and the whole host of revenue officers, will swarm over the land, devouring the hard earnings of the industrious like the locusts of old, impoverishing and desolating all before them.”
(A Democratic Federalist, 1787)
Alexander Hamilton wrote two articles in The Federalist that concerned the federal control of the militia and the limits on the government concerning the militia. He gives some examples as to when militias can be called to duty by the states and some examples as to when the militia can be called out by the federal government. In concerns to the states calling out the militia would to be stopping a civil insurrection or riot. In the chance of federal government calling the militia to duty would be in the case of one state invading another or a state creating a standing force, invasion by a foreign army, or Indian attacks on the frontiers of the fledgling nation. He also brings attention to preserving the union as a possible viability of the militia. Mr. Hamilton did make it very clear that the possible scenarios presented would be met with force proportional “to the extent of the mischief.”
Mr. Hamilton also included the right of the people to revolt in the face of a tyrannical government:
· “If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource, except in their courage and despair. The usurpers, clothed with forms of legal authority, can too often crush the opposition in embryo. The smaller the extent of the territory, the more difficult will it be to defeat their early efforts. Intelligence can be more speedily obtained of their preparations and movements, and the military force in possession of the usurpers can be more rapidly directed against part where the opposition has begun. In this situation there must be a peculiar coincidence of circumstances to insure success to the popular resistance.”
(Hamilton, 1787)
James Madison also contributed to the debate on the virtues of the constitution he wrote in the Federalist N0. 46 titled The Influence of the State and Federal Government in particular to the anti federalists:
· “The adversaries of the constitution seem to have lost sight of the people altogether in their reasoning on the subject, and to have viewed these different establishments not only as mutual rivals and enemies, but as uncontrolled by any common superior in their efforts to usurp the authorities of each other. These gentlemen must be here reminded of their error. They must be told that the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone, and that it will not depend merely on the comparative ambition or address of the different governments, what either, or which of them will be able to enlarge its sphere of jurisdiction at the expense of the other. Truth, no less than decency, requires that the event in every case should be supposed to depend on the sentiments and sanction of their common constituents.”
(Madison, 1788)
Madison shows that the purpose of the government is to serve the people’s wishes, and that when or if that government violates the “sentiments and sanctions” there can be consequences for those violations. Madison suggests that if there were a standing army accumulated for the purpose of ambition, the people would be able to constitute a force that would out number that army:
· “…That a state government, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls, or one twenty fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States (at that period of time, though looking at the current military population it is about the same levels as described then) in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence…Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.”
(Madison, 1788)
Madison proposed the Bill of rights during the first congress, he proposed 12 articles of which ten were re-written into simpler terms that could be understood by the common man, the first rights and government restrictions were something that the government could not take away from the people in any way, these were god given rights that existed before the constitution was written, These articles placed limits upon the government, the most important of which showed that the people held the most important power over the head of the government the power of force that now resides in the Second Amendment, to be used only when all other means of resolving the conflict of a tyrannical government fails.
When you look at the most important official United States document see that the Constitution supports that document better than the Articles of Confederation did, which Document do I speak of? I speak of the Declaration of Independence penned by Thomas Jefferson and presented to congress on 4 July 1776. In it he listed the reasons for severing ties from Great Britain, and why it should be done. In the most important paragraph of this document he writes:
“We hold these truths self evident, that all Men are created equal… Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers the consent of the governed, that whenever any form f government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the people to alter or abolish it, and institute new government, laying its Foundation on such principals and organizing it powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, Indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes…But when a long train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.”
(Jefferson, 1776)
I think that the founding fathers new what the exact cost of freedom was and in order to secure the freedom that cost was going to have to be paid through the force of arms. The people were in possession of arms to secure our freedom. They remembered the price that was paid by the people for the creation of this nation, and they ensured that price with the Bill of Rights, so they would not forget whom they work for. To bad the current elected representatives only selectively remember this point and the history behind it.
Gun Control Advocates maintain that the right to keep and bear arms was and is reserved to the state militia and that the militia was meant to be the National Guard only. To see this statement as patently false is simply for someone to look at the Definition of the militia according to the United States Codes (USC) and the statutes of the state that you live in. for example in Title 10 of the USC §§ 311 and 312:
§ 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. (In other words the rest of the people)
§ 312. Militia duty: exemptions
(a) The following persons are exempt from militia duty:
(1) The Vice President.
(2) The judicial and executive officers of the United States, the several States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.
(3) Members of the armed forces, except members who are not on active duty.
(4) Customhouse clerks.
(5) Persons employed by the United States in the transmission of mail.
(6) Workmen employed in armories, arsenals, and naval shipyards of the United States.
(7) Pilots on navigable waters.
(8) Mariners in the sea service of a citizen of, or a merchant in, the United States.
(b) A person who claims exemption because of religious belief is exempt from militia duty in a combatant capacity, if the conscientious holding of that belief is established under such regulations as the President may prescribe. However, such a person is not exempt from militia duty that the President determines to be noncombatant.
(10 USC §§ 311 and 312)
These statutes were originally part of the Dick Act of 1903, which reorganized the Militia Act of 1792, 1865, and 1882. (The purpose of the Dick Act was restructure the militia into the National Guard, in response to the failure of the militia to answer the call of congress to the Spanish American War) Now the National Guard is part of the United States Army as all soldiers that join the National Guard are Required to Dual enroll to the state National Guard and the United States Army, the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the National Guard is a reserve component of the US Army that can be federalized into the US Army and that it is not the militia force as originally conceived by the founding fathers. Yet the Unorganized Militia Class still exists in current law. In The militia and the Right to Arm, or, How the Second Amendment Fell Silent by H. Richard Ulliver and William G. Merkel state that The Militia Act of 1792 was repealed by the dick act, this not the case The Militia Act of 1792 was never has been repealed[xi], based on what I have read in their (Ulliver and Merkel’s) end notes the Dick Act only reorganized the militia into two distinct classes Organized militia and the Unorganized militia there was not a statement that said “the Uniform Militia Act of 1792 is hereby repealed;” so therefore The Militia Act of 1792 is still enforceable in regards to the Unorganized Militia. The Militia Act of 1792 specifies who the Militia is and the arms they are required to have. The requirements are under the act:
· …That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen (this has changed to include all males in Title 10 of the USC) who is or shall be of age of eighteen years (it is now 17 years of age) and under the age of forty five years (except as is herein excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the captain or commanding officer of the company (this has been changed through the Selective Service Act. The enrollment is now done through the United States Post Office. All males of 18 years of age to 26 years of age are required to enroll, and are therefore members of the Unorganized Militia are enrolled as it stands in the Militia Act of 1792), within those bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after passing this Act and it shall …
(Militia Act of 1792)
· That every citizen, so enrolled and notified shall within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock (the firelock statement was made in accordance with the technological developments and advancements being made continuously to the firearm), a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints (this has since changed also), 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 power, and shall appear so armed, accoutered and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. (Today this gear would be the equal or equivalent to the gear that is issued to each of our soldiers in the armed services)
(Militia Act of 1792)
Under 10 USC § 311 (b) Unorganized Militia, all able bodied males are required to be armed (most often at our own expense) with the equivalent arms of the standing armed forces of our nation, and required to train with our arms on appointed days by order of the local commander of the state militia under the provisions established by the Militia act of 1792, this provision is rarely enforced on the unorganized militia and does make the state reserve forces in rather poor condition; this fact in my opinion constitutes a severe threat to the states sovereignty and the nations sovereignty.
In the state of Missouri, where I live statutes also define what the classes of militia are and who are members of the militia:
· State militia, members.
· 41.050. The militia of the state shall include all able-bodied citizens and all other able-bodied residents, who, in the case of the unorganized militia and the Missouri reserve military force, shall be more than seventeen years of age and not more than sixty-four, and such other persons as may upon their own application be enrolled or commissioned therein, and who, in the case of the organized militia, shall be within the age limits and possess the physical and mental qualifications prescribed by law or regulations for the reserve components of the armed forces of the United States, except that this section shall not be construed to require militia service of any persons specifically exempted by the laws of the United States or the state of Missouri.
· Militia service, persons exempt.
· 41.060. The following persons shall be exempt from militia service:
· Persons exempt from militia service by the laws of the United States;
· Regular or duly ordained ministers of religion, or duly elected church officials regularly conducting church services, or those recognized by their church as devoting the major portion of their time to the practice of religion;
· Students preparing for the ministry in recognized theological or divinity schools.
· Organized and unorganized militia.
· 41.070. 1. The militia of the state is divided into two classes, the organized militia and the unorganized militia.
· 2. The organized militia shall consist of the following:
· Such elements of the land and air forces of the National Guard of the United States as are allocated to the state by the President or the Secretary of Army or Air, and accepted by the state, hereinafter to be known as the national guard and the air national guard;
· Such elements of the reserve naval forces of the United States as are allocated to the state by the President or the Secretary of the Navy, and accepted by the state, hereinafter called the naval militia; and the
· Missouri reserve military force, when organized.
· 3. The unorganized militia shall consist of all persons liable to serve in the militia but not commissioned or enlisted in the organized militia.
· Reserve military force--powers of governor.
· 41.490. The governor shall have the power to organize from the unorganized militia of Missouri a reserve military force for duty within or without the state to supplement the Missouri National Guard or replace it when it is mobilized in federal service. The Missouri reserve military force may be used to execute the laws, suppress insurrections, repel invasion, suppress lawlessness, and provide emergency relief to distressed areas in the event of earthquake, flood, tornado, or actual or threatened enemy attack or public catastrophe creating conditions of distress or hazard to public health and safety beyond the capacity of local or established agencies. The force shall consist of such organized troops, auxiliary troops, staff corps and departments, as the governor deems necessary. The governor shall prescribe the strength and composition of the various units of the same, uniform and insignia and the qualifications of its members, and shall have the power to grant a discharge there from for any reason deemed by him sufficient.
(Missouri Revised Statutes)
In many cases the unorganized militia is required to maintain there own equipment at there own expense, because the equipment that is maintained by the National Guard is actually federal property. The states haven’t maintained their own armory for almost 90 years. All able bodied males in the state of Missouri is subject call for militia duty, whether they are organized or unorganized militia. Which means the gun control acts that prohibit or would prohibit possession of arms are technically grievous violations of the Second Amendment, the USC, and state laws that require a large part of the population to be members of a militia force subject to call in service to the state and to the federal government and denies them the weapons that is essentially needed to perform their duties when called upon by the state and/or the nation. Gun control is a clear and present danger to the sovereignty of the United States and does disarm the Unorganized Militia.
In their final paragraph in the book The Militia and the right to arms, or, how the second amendment fell silent, Ulliver and Merkel make this statement:
· “…On the pressing question of gun control, the Constitution is neutral. The Second Amendment would take no notice if Congress, appalled by the prevalence of gun-assisted crimes, outlawed all handguns and assault rifles in private hands. By the same Token, the congress could vacate the field, and a similar retreat by the states, the National Rifle Association would realize its fondest wish, and every clean competent adult would be allowed free purchase and proud ownership of firepower of every description. So we conclude: let the great debate continue to rage-in the democratic branch where it belongs. But let us understand at last the Second amendment has no voice in the matter.”
(Ulliver and Merkel, 2002, p.229)
To this I would have to vehemently disagree, the second amendment does have a very loud voice in this matter, without this amendment “We The People” would have no means to maintain control over our freedom and government without this most important amendment. Politicians need to understand that they are no different than the people and that if they pass laws that step over the line and represses the people, they will have a very high price to pay for that transgression the second amendment is a means that ensures that the people have power over the government.
The articles I have read do present a clear view of the unconstitutionality of gun control, that only deprives people of their right to arms as guaranteed by the second amendment, the literature clearly shows that information even in the journal article “The Embarrassing Second Amendment” by Sanford Levinson shows that the Second Amendment is an individual right, Mr. Levinson hoped there wasn’t. But he said the best way to enforce gun control would be to “Repeal the embarrassing Second Amendment.” I personally could not think of a more dangerous thing to do in the United States than to repeal the second amendment. These books and articles do contain information that shows that gun control is not about crime control, but actually about loss of control of the people over the government, the destruction of the US Constitution, and American sovereignty. In the book Citizens Guide to Gun Control by Franklin E. Zimring and Gordon Hawkins state:
“No Doubt, some future gun tragedy might provide the spur for further legislation, but these episodes explain more about when we pass laws than how far our gun laws can be pushed as an instrument of social change.”
(Zimring and Hawkins, 1987, p.191)
The Statement says to me that gun control is a socialist democratic ideal, something that the founding fathers of our nation were against. this is one of the reasons they preserved the peoples right to keep and bear arms. But the only way to have a true grasp of the meaning of the Second Amendment is to read the Founding Fathers true intents of the purpose of the peoples right to arms. These concepts can be found in the federalist papers, the anti-federalist papers, the Militia Acts. Once we read the original concepts ‘We The People” of the current society should be more cognizant of our responsibility to ourselves and to the United States Constitution and We the People can better ensure our nations sovereignty.
To those that claim that gun control is about crime control, the only true way to control violent crime is to enforce the laws that are already on the books, not to treat the law abiding citizens as future criminals, and to try and sentence the criminals for their actions involving weapons and to make examples of the convicted criminals through punishment that others can see the consequences of their action in the hope it will deter future crimes of that type.
Barnett, Randy E., & Kates, Dan B. (1996). Under Fire: The New Consensus On the Second Amendment. Emory Law Journal. 45, 1139-1259. Retrieved from: http://www.guncite.com/journals/bk-ufire.html
Brutus, (3, 10 January 1788). Anti Federalist. Retrieved July 10, 2007, from Wepin store Web site: http://www.wepin.com/articles/afp/afp23.html
Brutus, (17 January 1788). Anti Federalist. Retrieved 10 July 2007, from Wepin store Web site: http://www.wepin.com/articles/afp/afp24.html
Brutus, (24 January 1788). Anti Federalist. Retrieved 10 July 2007, from Wepin store Web site: http://www.wepin.com/articles/afp/afp25.html
Bureau of Justice Statistics, (18 April 2007). Crime characteristics. Retrieved July 22, 2007, from U.S. Department of Justice · Office of Justice Programs Web site: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict_c.htm
DeBie, Tod (1 December 1996). A O U Gun Control Free men and Arms. Retrieved 22 July 2007, from Swedes Dock Web site: http://www.swedesdock.com/guncntrl.sht
Featherstone, James J., Gardinier, Richard E., & Dowlut, Robert (1982). The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution Guarantees an Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms. 97th Congress 2nd Session Committee Print Senate Report. 83-109. Retrieved from: http://www.guncite.com/journals/senrpt/fgd-guar.html
Federal Bureau of Investigation, (13 October 1996). Press Release on the 1995 Uniform Crime Report. Retrieved 22 July 2007, from U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation Web site: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr95prs.htm
Fields, William S., & Hardy, David T. (1992). The Militia and the Constitution: A Legal History. Military Law Review. 136, 1-42. Retrieved from: http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/FieldsAndHardy.html
Justice GRIER, (December, 1855). SOUTH v. STATE OF MARYLAND FOR USE OF POTTLE, 59 U.S. 396 (1855). Retrieved July 23, 2007, from Justia US Supreme Court Center Web site: http://supreme.justia.com/us/59/396/case.html
Hamilton, Alexander (18 December 1787). Federalist Papers Online. Retrieved 10 July 2007, from FoundingFathers.info Web site: http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed23.htm
Hamilton, Alexander (18 December 1787). Federalist Papers Online. Retrieved 10 July 2007, from FoundingFathers.info Web site: http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed28.htm
Hamilton, Alexander (18 December 1787). Federalist Papers Online. Retrieved 10 July 2007, from FoundingFathers.info Web site: http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed29.htm
Heath, J. Norman (2001). Exposing the Second Amendment: Federal Preemption of State Militia Legislation. University of Detroit Mercy Law Review. 79 U. Det. Mercy L. Rev. 39 (2001), retrieved from: http://www.guncite.com/journals/heath.html.
Henry, Patrick (1788). Anti Federalist. Retrieved 10 July 2007, from Wepin store Web site: http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed46.htm
Jefferson, Thomas (1776) The Declaration of Independence.
LaPierre, Wayne R. (1994). Guns, Crime, and Freedom. Washington D.C.: Regnery Publishing, Inc.
Levinson, Sanford (1989). The Embarrassing Second Amendment. Yale Law Journal. 99, 637-659. Retrieved from: http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/70embar.pdf
Madison, James (1791). Amendment II of the US Constitution.
Madison, James (29 January 1788). Federalist Papers Online. Retrieved 10 July 2007, from FoundingFathers.info Web site: http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed46.htm
Missouri Revised Statutes Title V §§ 41.050, 41.060, 41.070, and 41.090 Retrieved 10 July 2007 from Missouri General Assembly Web Site: http://www.moga.mo.gov/STATUTES/STATUTES.HTM
Justice Scalia, (27 June 2005). CASTLE ROCK V. GONZALES (04-278) 366 F.3d 1093 (2005), reversed. Retrieved 22 July 2007, from Cornell law school legal information institute Web site: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-278.ZO.html
United States Codes Title 10 §§ 311 and 312 Retrieved 10 July 2007 From Cornell Law School Web site: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, (9 march 2007). Parker v. DC. Retrieved 10 July 2007, from Find Law for Legal Professionals Web site: http://login.findlaw.com/scripts/case_login?dest=http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/dc/047041a.pdf
Uviller, H. Richard, & Merkel, William G. (2002). The Militia and the Right to Arms, or, How the Second Amendment Fell Silent. Durham and London: Duke University Press.
Wikipedia, (5 July 2007). Crime in the United States. Retrieved 22 July 2007, from Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia Web site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States
Zimring, Franklin E., & Hawkins, Gordon (1987). The Citizen Guide to Gun Control. New York, New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
[i] Taking aim at gun control Polsby and Brennan wrote this review as a an assessment of effectiveness of the gun control laws currently in force at that time, many of their observations still hold true to this day. And their conclusion is that gun control des not prevent crimes, but rather increase it.
[ii] Bureau of Justice Statistics
[iii]Federal Bureau of Investigation 1995 UCR Press release
[iv] Bureau of Justice Statistics
[v]Federal Bureau of Investigation 1995 UCR Press release
[vi] Federal Bureau of Investigation 1995 UCR Press release
7There is some question of whether this sentiment was actually made by Sarah Brady to USA Today after passage of the Brady Act in 1993, but other quotes that were made by Sarah Brady still make this a viable sentiment of social reformers of gun control.
8 South v. Maryland 59 U.S. 396 (1855) supra did not find that there was a special relationship that would establish that the sheriff had to give protection services to the respondent in a near riot situation.
9 Castle Rock v. Gonzalez (04-278) 366 F.3d 1093 (2005) A decision that overruled the lower court ruling that the Castle Rock Police Department failed to enforce court order which was a violation of due process under the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The court stated that the wording on the back of the Court order was to vague and that the order itself was unenforceable therefore no due process was violated under the 14th amendment, the court also re-affirmed the private individuals are not actually entitled to police protection.
[x] Wikipedia, Crime in the United States list the crime ratings for over twenty cites but does not list the trends or in any particular types of crimes.
[xi] The wording that is used in the Dick Act comes from the End Notes on p. 289 The Dick Act ch. 196 § 1, stat. 775,775 (1903)
· “That the militia shall consist of all able bodied male citizen of the respective states, territories and the district of Columbia, and every able-bodied male of foreign birth who has declared his intention to become a citizen, who is more than eighteen and less than forty-five years of age, and shall be divided into two classes- the organized militia, to be known as the National Guard of the state, territory, or District of Columbia, or by such other designations as may be given them by the laws of the respective states or territories, and the remainder to be known as the reserve militia.”
(The Dick Act of 1903 as Cited by Ulliver and Merkel, 2002)
Militia acts that followed have eventually evolved into title 10 of the United States Code, with Title 32 defining the organized militia known as the Army and Air National Guard. But one thing still remains is that the Militia Act of 1792 hasn’t been repealed, as Ulliver and Merkel have stated in their treatise.
