Lock and Load
(July 10, 2008) He went to the big armory in the sky a few years ago, but on the evening of June 26, here in Petrolia, I could almost hear the joyful salvos that my neighbor, Curly Wright, half a mile down Conklin Creek Road, would have loosed off into the hillside the other side of the Mattole.
June 26? For millions of Americans the political highpoint of 2008 is now behind them. The precise day is forever inscribed in their hearts as one of glorious ratification of one of America’s core freedoms: the day the U.S. Supreme Court for the first time affirmed by a narrow majority of 5-4 the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, “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.”
The last time Joe Paff (co-pilot of the indispensable Gold Rush Coffee) and I visited Curly, then in his early 80s, his strict constructionist reading of the Second Amendment was visible in every cranny of his home. Without twisting my head as I sat on the couch I think I counted around 30 long guns disposed about the premises. Tucked between the cushions of the couch itself and in a planter or two there were small handguns available for swift deployment. Curly was an unregulated militia all on his own.
The Supreme Court’s decision was a frightful blow to the gun controllers. “This is a decision that will cost innocent lives, cause immeasurable pain and suffering and turn America into a more dangerous country,” wailed the New York Times in an editorial. “A frightening decision and a return to the days of the Wild West,” said Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago, a city to which gunfire has been street Muzak for many decades.
The Court’s decision was written by the court’s peppery ultra-conservative, Justice Antonin Scalia, who became positively lyrical in his paean to the handgun: “There are many reasons that a citizen may prefer a handgun for home defense: It is easier to store in a location that is readily accessible in an emergency; it cannot easily be redirected or wrestled away by an attacker; it is easier to use for those without the upper-body strength to lift and aim a long gun; it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police. Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.”
Thinking of Curly’s well-defended home, I remain astounded by the tiny number of weapons allegedly seized by the feds in their recent execution of 29 search warrants in our county, commencing on June 24. The 450 intrepid agents from “Operation Southern Sweep” (mustered from the DEA, FBI, BNE, and other heavily armed detachments of the sovereign power, like the Post Office Inspectors) managed to dredge up a mere 30 firearms in the course of their operations.
Only 30 firearms seized in SoHum! Mr. McGregor probably had better home defense against Peter Rabbit. If that’s all that a passel of alleged cultivators can muster in SoHum, heaven help us when the Chinese declare World War III. They could land at Shelter Cove, and scythe their way through the woods to Garberville with only token resistance from pacifists bunkered down in their plastic greenhouses flourishing watering cans. The red flag would be flapping over Willits by sundown, and San Francisco right down 101 waiting to drop into the hands of the Commie-Capitalists like a ripe plum.
Oddly enough, considering the endless political battling over gun rights, the nation’s highest court has only once before ruled on the citizens’ inherent right to bear arms, and this was in the Roosevelt era. Gun control was one of the prime goals of the New Deal, partly as a backlash from the Tommy Gun era of Prohibition and the Roaring Twenties; also because in those distant days there was a very large and militant left, of which FDR was afraid. The New Deal was a desperate attempt to stave off much more far-reaching challenges to Business-as-Usual.
→ post a comment
seven-o-heaven
Old Town Arcata
Will Plaza Point put the kibosh on Arcata whippersnapper shenanigans?
Recent the town dandy
Jan. 13, 2011
The Golden Boy
Dec. 23, 2010
Wish Lists
Dec. 16, 2010
The Train Geeks Return
Today
Inked Hearts Valentine’s Tattoo Expo
STAFF PICK / events / 11 a.m.-10 p.m. Blue Lake Casino. Get a tattoo from local and/or guest artists. www.bluelakecasino.com. 668-9770.
Trinidad School Valentines Ball
events / 6 p.m. Trinidad Town Hall, 409 Trinity St. Roaring ‘20s theme dinner and dance featuring blues master Earl Thomas. $60. 677-3631.
Artists Valentines Exhibition/HeART Auction
holiday events, art / 6-8 p.m. Morris Graves Museum of Art, 636 F St., Eureka. Bid on original art for your sweetheart while enjoying wine, hors d'oeuvres and live music. Proceeds benefit Humboldt Arts Council programs. $20/$15 HAC Members. www.humboldtarts.org. 442-0278.
Valentine's Dance
events, music, dance / 8-11 p.m. Arcata Community Center, 321 Community Parkway. Arcata Volunteer Fire Department sponsored dance includes music by Dr. Squid no-host bar, late evening buffet, raffle and silent auction. $10. ArcataFire.org. 825-1562.
More →
TWO Comments
Comment / By Sailorcurt / July 10, 2008, 7:37 p.m.
The Supreme Court affirmed this in 1939, simultaneously emphasizing that the Amendment confirmed the collective rights of a militia, not individual citizens, and that the arms did not include sawn-off shotguns or assault weapons.
Um…that’s not entirely accurate.
The Miller decision did not address the collective vs individual right aspect.
Had the court decided that only members of an organized militia were endowed with the right to keep and bear arms, the only question then would have been “is Miller a member of a militia?” That question was never even asked. It was understood at the time (as it is now by people who actually understand the concept of a “militia”) that EVERY able bodied male was a member of the militia by default.
What the Miller decision held was that the the firearm in question had no military use and, therefore, was not protected by the Second Amendment.
In other words, the court did NOT find for a “collective right” (an oxymoron if I’ve ever heard one) reserved only to members of an organized militia. It found that the WEAPON must have some military use in order be considered among the “arms” protected under the Second Amendment.
“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.”
…
“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.”
—US vs Miller 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
Comment / By Sailorcurt / July 11, 2008, 7:29 a.m.
What the Miller decision held was that the the firearm in question had no military use and, therefore, was not protected by the Second Amendment.
Actually, in retrospect, THAT’S not even an accurate summation of the decision.
The court held that no evidence had been presented to them to demonstrate that a short barreled shotgun had any military utility.
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.[emphasis added]
The court didn’t say absolutely that the shotgun had no military utility, just that no evidence had been provided to them to demonstrate such.
That’s not incredibly surprising considering that the Miller side didn’t even bother to argue their side of the case. Miller’s lawyer didn’t even bother to file a brief, let alone present an oral argument.
It’s pretty easy to win when you have no opposition.
I find it interesting that, in passing the laws that place restrictions on things like short barreled shotguns, the military is exempted.
If such an arm has no military utility, why did they bother to exempt the military from the restrictions? Hmmmm.
Either way, the point remains that the court did NOT find for a “collective right” (that makes me cringe to write, even when putting it in quotes. The concept of a “collective right” makes about as much sense as “dry water”…the terms are mutually exclusive).