Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns Subject: nra-HCI trashes histor 01 From: [victor dura] at [pcohio.com] (Victor Dura) Date: Thu, 30 Jun 94 07:09:00 -0500 From: scc3#news.delphi.com ([S C C 3] at [DELPHI.COM]) Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns Subject: Reprehensible Tactics/HCI/CPHV Date: 29 Jun 1994 03:06:27 -0000 Skullduggery by (H)elp the (C)riminally (I)nclined continues apace. It has come to my attention via the Paul Revere Network that HCI and the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence are quietly and jointly engaged in an effort to lobby secondary school administrators over the 'acceptability' of various U.S. history texts. Their litmus test for acceptability is the coverage given to the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. HCI and the CPHV wish to promulgate the 'State's Rights' misinterpretation of the Second Amendment in our nation's schools. If this revisionism succeeds, the 2nd amendment will have effectively been rendered meaningless to future generations. An ingenious approach, I must admit. The following excerpts are from the HCI/CPHV booklet entitled "Teaching the Bill of Rights; The Case of the Second Amendment", and subtitled "A Critique of Existing Educational Materials and Suggestions for Change". I wish to credit Chris Meissen for disseminating the text over the Paul Revere Network, and Jim Henry of Airpower BBS for bringing this to my attention. Before reading this dross, please remember that contrary to the claims made herein the courts have NOT upheld the 'State's Rights' fiction, and that the historical case for the individual right to keep and bear arms dwarfs that of the pet theories of Gun Grabber revisionists. Page 1, bottom paragraph ... " The Center to Prevent Handgun Violence has reviewed a sample of secondary school U.S. History and Government textbooks from the nation's largest educational publishers to examine their treatment of the Second Amendment. Our research shows that almost all textbooks give only the most cursory attention to the Second Amendment. Yet, fully 50% of the books ignore the unanimous decisions of the courts in their two to three sentence explanation of the Second Amendment. Whether intentionally or not, these textbooks are endorsing a particular view of the Second Amendment, rather than providing the necessary background for an informed political discussion of gun control. Believing that a proper understanding of the Second Amendment would free students to tackle the real issues of gun control, we have prepared recommendations for future editions of textbooks and as guidance for educators addressing the meaning of the "right to bear arms."" ... page 3, near bottom .... "WHAT STUDENTS ARE BEING TAUGHT ABOUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are studied in many school systems in the 8th grade and again in grades 11 or 12. A review of 40 leading U.S. History and Civics textbooks shows great consistency in approach and and in recognition of what the courts have said about the Second Amendment." "Half of the sample studied acknowledged the judicial reading of the Amendment by specifically linking the "right to bear arms" clause to the "militia" interpretation. The text Government_in_the_ United_States, McMillan Publishing Company, is a good example: `The 2nd Amendment is designed to prevent the national government from taking weapons away from a state militia or the National Guard, as it is called today. This amendment does not prevent Congress from regulating the interstate sale of weapons. Nor does it apply to the states. States are free to regulate the sale of firearms as they see fit.' "The following example from People_and_Our_Country, Holt, Rinehart and Winston Publishers, also is consistent with court rulings: `The states have the right to maintain armed militias for their protection. However, the rights of private citizens to own guns can be, and are, regulated by federal and state legislation.' "The simple statement from Civics,_Government,_and_Citizenship, Allyn and Bacon, Inc., is also accurate: `The federal government cannot deny the states the right to keep an armed militia.' "Another approach can be to tie the historically significant notion of bearing arms for militia service to the gun control debate of today. For example, the more extensive discussion in MacGruder's _American_Government_, Allyn and Bacon, Inc., introduces the gun control debate with an explanation of the judicial decisions: `Read [the words of the Second Amendment] very carefully -- because the 2nd Amendment is a very widely misunderstood part of the Bill of Rights. Its words were added to the Constitution _solely_ to protect the right of each State to keep a militia. It was intended to preserve the concept of the citizen-soldier -- the "minuteman," as its text clearly suggests. It does not guarantee to any person the "right to keep and bear arms" free from any restriction by government; nor was it written to do so. The Amendment has no real significance today -- _except_ for its propaganda weight in arguments over gun control.' "A particularly interesting interpretation, which again is consistent with established judicial precedent, is made in _American_Government_ Today_, Scott, Foresman & Co.:" (...I'm deleting some of the quote...) "`The Supreme Court has consistently held that Amendment 2 refers to a right to bear arms in a militia. It has not said that Americans have an unlimited right to bear arms to hunt, defend themselves, or to practice target shooting. Many people have questioned this interpretation. They challenge any attempt to control guns. . . .'" "In contrast to these examples," (of books HCI thinks are correct) "_fully_50%_of_the_texts_reviewed_were_incorrect_or_ambiguous_in_ their_presentations_of_the_Second_Amendment. Several imply that there is a broad right to bear arms. They omit the key factor that the right to be armed continues to exist only in connection with militia service. "For example, _American_Civics:_Constitution_Edition, Harcourt Brace Javonovich, Inc., states unequivocally: `The Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees Americans the right to bear arms. The government cannot forbid Americans to own weapons, such as handguns and rifles.' The text also introduces the topic of the present day gun control debate: `Some people have demanded that guns be regulated. They say that gun control laws would lower the crime rate. Other people argue that the Second Amendment gives them the right to own weapons. They say that this amendment prevents the government from passing laws limiting that right.' "Other textbooks include statements that are inconsistent with the court decisions. For example, _You_the_Citizen, Benefic Press, explains the Second Amendment like this: `People also have a right to keep and bear arms. States may register and control guns, but the federal government cannot stop people from having them.' "_USA:_The_Unfolding_Story_of_America, AMSCO School Publications, Inc., states: `This amendment concerns Americans' right_to_bear_arms (own weapons. At the time, many Americans needed guns for hunting and for personal protection. Some others belonged to a civilian militia and needed weapons to defend communities. (Emphasis in original.)' "Other textbooks have ambiguous and/or contradictory presentations. For example, _Civics:_Citizens_and_Society, McGraw-Hill, appears to present a balanced presentation of the Second Amendment "debate": `The Second Amendment has been the subject of much argument... A MILITIA is an army of citizens. In time of peace, its members are civilians. But they have weapons ready in case they are called upon to defend their government. Each of the thirteen colonies had its own militia. The militias served an important part in the American Revolution. Today, the nearest thing to state militias are the units of the National Guard. Can the federal or state governments control or limit the ownership of guns? Some people argue that the Second Amendment gives all people an unlimited right to keep arms such as rifles and pistols. ... Other people argue that the Second Amendment was not meant to keep the government from making such regulations. They say that the amendment was meant to protect the right of state governments to keep a militia. They say that the amendment has little meaning today.' "The 1992 `Freedom Edition' of _American_Civics_, Harcourt Brace Javanovich, Inc, focuses on the importance of guns in American history and the dark side of gun ownership today. It discusses the Morton Grove handgun ban and accurately states that: `[E]very Supreme Court and federal decision involving the amendment has held that the amendment does not _guarantee_ the right of individuals to own or to carry arms. Thus, gun control laws are constitutional.' "Yet this same textbook also states, contrary to the Morton Grove decision, that: `The Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees Americans the right to bear arms. The government cannot forbid Americans to own weapons, such as handguns and rifles.'" In another section of the book, this text asserts that the Second Amendment gives each individual the right to keep weapons to resist a tyrannical government: `The right of states to have a militia (National Guard) is guaranteed. The right of citizens to keep weapons to resist a tyrannical government is also protected.'" This statement reflects the "insurrectionist" theory which the gun lobby is hoping to popularize even though it has never been accepted by a court and is contrary to the general judicial consensus. According to this theory, there is a constitutional right of each citizen to engage in armed insurrection against the government whenever the citizen believes the government has become "tyrannical." Several of the texts suggest a constitutional protection for private armies unconnected to any government. The Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution grants no right to participate in private armed military organizations. (Presser v. Illinois. See also Vietnamese Fisherman's Assoc. v. KKK.) "Another example of a text which includes contradictory views of the Second Amendment in different sections of the book is American_ Spirit_, _A_History_of_the_United_States, Allyn and Bacon, Inc. The 1985 edition written by Prof. Clarence L. Ver Steeg, includes a chart showing as one of the individual rights in the Bill of Rights the following: ` The right to keep and carry firearms for self-protection.'" Again (in case the message gets split), the above excerpts are from the HCI/CPHV booklet "Teaching the Bill of Rights; the Case of the Second Amendment", currently being distributed to secondary school administrators. If anyone has further information about this program or any ideas about how best to counter this attempt to rewrite American history, I think we could use the input. Steve Clark, Allentown PA cc: BELL, ART in 0005 on PC-OHIO Regards, Vic Dura ([Victor Dura] at [pcohio.com]) Rogersville, Alabama, USA * RM 1.3 01752 * Get 'em Rush!! Sic 'em!!! Go on boy, rip 'em up!!!