And what exactly is "the Militia?" as understood by our Founding Fathers?

And now for a bit of Historical Analysis by the SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION
of the UNITED STATES SENATE NINETY-SEVENTH CONGRESS, Second Session, February 1982:

In the Militia Act of 1792, the second Congress defined "militia of the United States" to include almost every free adult male in the United States. These persons were obligated by law to possess a firearm and a minimum supply of ammunition and military equipment. This statute, incidentally, remained in effect into the early years of the present century as a legal requirement of gun ownership for most of the population of the United States. There can by little doubt from this that when the Congress and the people spoke of a "militia", they had reference to the traditional concept of the entire populace capable of bearing arms, and not to any formal group such as what is today called the National Guard. The purpose was to create an armed citizenry, which the political theorists at the time considered essential to ward off tyranny. From this militia, appropriate measures might create a "well regulated militia" of individuals trained in their duties and responsibilities as citizens and owners of firearms.

If gun laws in fact worked, the sponsors of this type of legislation should have no difficulty drawing upon long lists of examples of crime rates reduced by such legislation. That they cannot do so after a century and a half of trying — that they must sweep under the rug the southern attempts at gun control in the 1870-1910 period, the northeastern attempts in the 1920-1939 period, the attempts at both Federal and State levels in 1965-1976 — establishes the repeated, complete and inevitable failure of gun laws to control serious crime.

Another BBC Have your Say

So the BBC Asked:

Is debate about the Middle East being stifled at western universities?

A top university in the UK has been accused of "selling out" academic freedom of speech after scrapping a talk by the author Matthias Küntzel.

His lecture on Hitler's Legacy: Islamic Anti-semitism in the Middle East, was cancelled by Leeds university after safety concerns were raised.

Also, San Francisco State University (SFSU) is putting the College Republicans on trial for hosting an anti-terrorism rally at which participants stepped on makeshift Hezbollah and Hamas flags, one of which bore the name of Allah.

Are you at university? What do you make of these stories? Are western universities stifling debate on the Middle East? Should universities be places for free debate, whatever the topic?

Here is how I responded:

There is a reason why the Founding Fathers of the American Revolution included the right to bear arms as one of the bill of rights, because armed free men are not afraid of the tyranny of religious zealots, whatever their stripe, and a freedom from fear to speak is what truly enables freedom of speech to be open, honest, and complete. This is what has allowed the American experiment to include Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Puritans, Greek Orthodox, and religions of all kind, variation, and flavor to live in relative peace thus far, though they have each spilled each other's blood in the past in their respective homelands. Wherever free men are not armed, you will find deficits of freedom.

And for good measure, I signed my name Publius.

Go tell the BBC how you think.

John Lott on the DC Gun Ban

John Lott, whose work I greatly respect and whose blog I regularly read, chimes in about the DC Gun Ban and its overturn by the DC Courts. He has this to say about the 'effectiveness' of DC's experiment with gun control:

But the long-term changes in crime rates before and after the ban are difficult to ignore. In the five years before Washington’s ban in 1976, the murder rate fell from 37 to 27 per 100,000. In the five years after it went into effect, the murder rate rose back up to 35. During this same time, robberies fell from 1,514 to 1,003 per 100,000 and then rose by over 63 percent, up to 1,635. The five-year trends are not some aberration. In fact, while murder rates have varied over time, during the 30 years since the ban, the murder rate has only once fallen below what it was in 1976.

Indeed. Gun bans only disarm law-abiding citizens. I have no problem with background checks or Conceal Carry licensing mechanisms which enable law abiding citizens to arm themselves while preventing felons from doing the same. But the gun banners don't want to compromise on this. They falsely believe that you can wave a magical legislative wand and all the guns will disappear. The recent history of Washington DC, the UK, and Australia show how wrong they are.

A Revolutionary Idea

So the recent DC District Court ruling on the 2nd Amendment has really made some waves, and the mainstream media has utterly failed to give this the attention that it deserves. The fact that they found that "the people" mentioned in the 2nd Amendment are the same "people" in all the other Amendments, and not "the state national guard" has really pissed off Liberals & hoplophobes everywhere. Reason magazine has a great editorial about this today.

I really hope that this case goes up to the Supreme Court, and that SCOTUS agrees to hear it. The results will either be a great victory for American rights, or it will cause a new civil war.

Victory in DC & HR1022

So there has been some amazingly good news lately. The DC circuit court of appeals has ruled that DC's gun ban is unconstitutional, and more importantly that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual's right to bear arms. Here is a pdf copy of the court's ruling.

That's the good news. The bad news is that the Democrats are busy committing political suicide by beginning to back HR1022, which is a new assault weapons ban. I'm hoping that the Blue Dogs will put a stop to this, otherwise we'll see the Democrats swept out of power like back in the 90's after they did this.

I highly recommend that you write your congress person about HR1022. I have written letters to both of my Senators & my House Representative. Here is what I wrote them:

Dear Congressman XXX

I recently learned that Rep. Carolyn McCarthy has introduced HR 1022, a bill “To reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes.”

I strongly urge you to oppose this bill. HR 1022 is an affront to our 2^nd Amendment Rights as citizens.

Here is what the DC Court of appeals recently ruled in Parker vs. District of Columbia concerning the 2^nd Amendment and it’s stance as a guarantee of the right of citizens to be armed:

To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to placate their Antifederalist opponents. The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second Amendment's civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia.

I strongly agree with the DC court’s ruling and interpretation of the 2^nd Amendment, therefore I strongly urge you to oppose HR 1022.

Thank you sincerely for your time.

FBI study confirms that criminals ignore gun laws

According to the December 28, 2006 issue of Force Science News, the FBI research focused on 40 incidents involving assaults or deadly attacks on police officers, in which all but one of the guns involved had been obtained illegally, and none were obtained from gun shows.

The Force Science News is published by the Force Science Research Center, a non-profit institution based at Minnesota State University in Mankato. The newsletter quotes Ed Davis, an FBI Criminal Investigative Instructor, who told the International Association of Chiefs of Police that none of these criminals who attacked police officers was "hindered by any law - federal, sate or local - that has ever been established to prevent gun ownership. They just laughed at gun laws." The newsletter also stated, "In contrast to media myth, none of the firearms in the study was obtained from gun shows."

The report is a 'smoking gun' in terms of revelations about the sources of crime guns and the failure of gun control. Apparently anti-gun owner politicians and police chiefs do not want the public to know the truth as they campaign against the so-called "gun show loophole". Now it's time for the IACP leadership, police officials, and political leaders to acknowledge that gun laws don't stop criminals, that they only restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens, and that gun shows are not the 'arms bazaars for criminals' as they have been portrayed.

The FBI's website says that "Violent Encounters: Felonious Assaults on America's Law Enforcement Officers" is available from the Uniform Crime Reporting Program Office, FBI Complex, 1000 Custer Hollow Road, Clarksburg, WV 26306-0150 or by calling 888-827-6427

I really don't have much more to say than that. The link has the pdf's of the report. I highly recommend sending copies to your elected representatives.