Lock and Load
Cunningly, FDR’S strategy was to attack gun rights not by a head-on assault on the Second Amendment but by the devious but always deadly route of taxation. Taking weapons across state lines and even transferring ownership became costly activities. 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.
For the next half century the gun controllers pushed steadily forward, given helpful shoves by the assassinations of the Sixties, Reagan’s narrow escape and the crack wars of the Eighties. The Democratic Party, listening particularly to its liberal, urban and feminine base, made gun control a major plank. The recoil came in 2000, with Al Gore’s defeat at the hands of George Bush. Guns, not Nader, were a prime factor in that narrow loss. Gore’s endorsement of gun control cost the Democrats Virginia, Tennessee, Arkansas, Colorado and the mountain states. The Democrats began to sideline the issue. The gun lobby weathered the crises of school shootings at Columbine and Virginia Tech. The Bush presidencies saw membership of the Court swing steadily to the right.
Europeans, snootily aghast at America’s 50 million households holding about 250 million guns,usually miss two important points. “Home defense” is a phrase with profound reverberations, as Scalia emphasized strongly in such paragraphs as the one cited above. And the gun lobby has been successful in anchoring their cause in the notion of a basic “freedom,” in an era when Americans correctly feel that freedoms — against unreasonable searches and seizures, or to a speedy trial — are being relentlessly eroded by Government.
Looking for silver linings the day after the decision, gun controllers pointed to Scalia’s acknowledgment that cities and states can still pass laws denying weapons to the unsuitable, ban them altogether near schools, prohibit bazookas on front lawns and so forth. But, in response, the exultant gun owners point to the all-important footnote 27 in Scalia’s decision, declaring flatly that laws impinging on the Second Amendment can receive no lower level of review than any other “specific enumerated right” such as free speech, the guarantee against double jeopardy or the right to counsel. June 26 truly did open a new page in American judicial history, as politicians quickly recognized.
In contrast to the New York Times’ editors, the Democratic nominee for the presidency, Barack Obama, took a modulated position but one which prudently avoided any whisper of criticism of the Court, or of Scalia. Obama is from Mayor Daley’s city, but in contrast to Daley he emphasized that the Court had indicated that prudent restrictions on gun ownership are not at risk. (Of course they are, and indeed are already the object of legal challenge in Chicago.) But his voice was at its most forceful when he said that he entirely agreed with the Court that Americans have the right to bear arms. The National Rifle Association is raising the prospect that Obama, as President, might sponsor legislation to nullify the Court’s decision. Don’t believe it. The NRA needs a threat to keep the membership high and the donations rolling in. Obama, as candidate or president, is not stupid. He’ll leave the gun issue lie. That particular liberal cause will be on the shelf for many years to come.
A last word of advice to the Chinese: Stay away from Shelter Cove.Send in your Airborne commandos and set up base at Arcata Airport. First order of business: Finish the baggage carousel whose snail-pace construction has made Arcata Airport the envy even of the masterminds who have kept San Jose International Airport under permanent construction for the past 30 years. The Chinese built Beijing’s new airport, five times the size of Heathrow, in less time than it took British Airways to construct Terminal 5, whose launch on May 27 caused the largest baggage jam in southern England since Madonna settled in the UK.
Alexander Cockburn coedits the website and newsletterCounterPunch, writes a column forThe Nation, and writes a syndicated column carried by several newspapers. He has lived in Petrolia since 1990. He can be reached at alexandercockburn@asis.com.
→ post a comment
on the cover
Railroad!
Proposed lines ‘set rich blood a-tingling’ in early 1900s
Some Other Proposed North Coast Railroads
Choo-choo Fantasies
Exposing this east-west rail nonsense
seven-o-heaven
Undeterred Will
Will chides Andrew for lack of attention to detail and makes plans for his inevitable victory.
Recent the town dandy
Jan. 13, 2011
The Golden Boy
Dec. 23, 2010
Wish Lists
Dec. 16, 2010
The Train Geeks Return
Today
44th Annual Kinetic Grand Championship Race
STAFF PICK / events, art, outdoors, sports, for kids, free / 9 a.m.-6 p.m. A 3-day, 42-mile kinetic sculpture race over land, sand, mud and water! LeMans start at the Noon Whistle on the Arcata Plaza. Follow the race through Manila, Eureka and into Ferndale on Memorial Day for the Glorious Finish. kineticgrandchampionship.com. 889-3024.
Flow 2012 Fashion Show
STAFF PICK / events / 8 p.m. Arcata Theatre Lounge, 1036 G St. Student designed and produced clothing. Fundraiser for Arcata Arts Institute. $35/$25 students. artsinstitute.net. 822-1220.
Woodside Preschool's Rummage/Bake Sale
events / 8 a.m.-noon. Woodside Preschool, 900 Hodgson St, Eureka. www.woodsidepreschool.com. 445-9132.
Lanphere Dunes Restoration
STAFF PICK / outdoors / 9:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m. Meet at Pacific Union School. Help remove non-native invasives at the Lanphere Dunes Unit of the Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge. Tools and gloves provided, wear work clothes and bring water. Carpool to the protected site. 444-1397.
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).