Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 22:16:15 -0400
From: [C h ris 823] at [aol.com]
To: Multiple recipients of list <[n--b--n] at [mainstream.net]>
Subject: HCI on AOL

By GAIL ROBINSON
Staff Attorney, Center to Prevent Handgun Violence

WASHINGTON -- The text, history and court interpretations of the Second
Amendment all support the well-accepted view that the amendment guarantees
only a limited right to be armed in connection with service in a "well
regulated militia." This limited right is in no way violated by laws
affecting the private ownership of firearms.

In full, the Second Amendment reads: "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 introductory phrase, often
referred to as the "militia clause," clearly limits the scope of the right
granted to those serving in a "well regulated" state militia.

The historical evidence also supports the granting of a limited right. At the
time the Constitution was adopted, each of the states had its own "militia"
-- a military force comprised of ordinary citizens serving as part-time
soldiers. These militia were "well regulated" in the sense that their members
were subject to various legal requirements, including that they report for
training several days a year and that they supply their own equipment for
militia use.

When the Constitution was sent to the states for ratification in 1787, the
continued viability of the state militia was a central issue. The new
Constitution established a permanent army composed of professional soldiers
and controlled by the federal government. Because of their experience with
the English army, many colonists harbored a deep distrust of such a "standing
army" and viewed the state militia as an effective counterpoint to its power.
Thus, the purpose of the amendment was to preclude the federal government
from enacting laws which would disarm the state militia.

In short, the colonial "militia" was not simply an ad hoc collection of armed
citizens. Rather, it was an organized military force, "well regulated" by the
state governments. The modern day counterpart to this early militia is the
National Guard -- a state-organized military force of ordinary citizens
serving as part-time soldiers. Because gun control laws invariably exempt the
National Guard, they have no effect on the arming of today's militia and
therefore raise no serious Second Amendment issue.

Since the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939),
the courts have been unanimous in their support for the militia
interpretation of the Second Amendment. In Miller, the high court wrote that
the "obvious purpose" of the amendment was "to assure the continuation and
render possible the effectiveness" of the state militia. The court added that
the amendment "must be interpreted and applied with that end in view."

Since Miller, lower federal courts and state courts have addressed the
meaning of the Second Amendment in dozens of cases. In every one, they have
decided that the amendment guarantees a right to be armed only in connection
with service in a "well regulated Militia." The courts unanimously have
rejected the NRA's view that the Second Amendment is about self-defense or
sporting uses of guns.

As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit wrote, the courts "have
analyzed the Second Amendment purely in terms of protecting state militias,
rather than individual rights." U.S. v. Nelson, 859 F.2nd 1318 (1988).