At the end of yesterday's Gun Rights Examiner column, I promised you I'd bring in some qualified opinions on the gun registration/ constitutionality controversy. I've addressed the issue before.
From my interview with attorney and author David T. Hardy (in "Comments"):
DC: ...I've read works by some 2A scholars-- including ones on "our side"-- suggesting that registration of guns is not necessarily out of line with the intent of the Founders, the rationale being they defined what weapons were acceptable for duty in the Militia Act. My own take on this is that, while mustered, regulations and standards were indeed enforceable, that they could require you show up with this type shot and that much powder, etc., I find it an unsupported stretch to imply this means the government could then have authority over keeping tabs on what firearms you kept privately for non-militia purposes...
DH: I'd agree... the militia laws required proving that you owned *at least one* gun of the required type. As I sometimes put it, in the 2nd amendment the right to arms clause means you have the right to choose how many arms you want, and the militia clause means that Congress can punish you if the answer is "none."
From my interview with author and historian David E. Young:
DC: I’ve had a bone to pick with some of the leading 2A academics for some time. Some have deemed registration not to be an infringement on RKBA because of the requirement for militia members to muster with specified armaments and accoutrements, which would then be logged into the rolls. My argument is that ensuring an adequately equipped fielded force is one thing—but it’s not the same as making citizens register everything back at home they did not bring with them, nor did it require those not in service to provide such information—and likewise, private sales/bartering between individuals were commonly just that, with no record or trail. Thoughts?
DY: Gun control advocates refer to the period requirement under militia laws of showing up at militia muster with a specific type of firearm, or the very rare provision which provided for unannounced visits by officers to men's homes for the purpose of verifying their possession of the required type of firearm, as registration. Such period requirements were far different than the registration that anti-rights types want imposed by government today. Many people would happily comply with a government provision requiring them to possess the current issue military rifle, and even a requirement that militia officers could show up unannounced and demand that a man actually get his firearm out of the house and show it to them. But that is far, far from what gun control advocates are after, isn't it? Don't hold your breath for them to push adoption of true militia laws anytime soon.
As for those on "our side" who feel a compelling need to volunteer that the Heller decision combined with Militia Act intent now makes mandatory gun registration "legal," remember that the Constitution is the "supreme law of the land." They and those who would exploit their "reluctant" admissions would do well to remember that some of us know you don't need to wear black robes and speak all the ritual judicial incantations to understand the intent behind our right to keep and bear arms-- and our commitment to preserving and restoring it.
So if anyone has a burning desire to know who among us has guns, they'd do well to consider this as all the answer they need:
Enough of us.
------------
To all free men and women who escaped collectivist tyranny: Stand with us!
Mike Vanderboegh at Sipsey Street Irregulars writes:
Join us in Washington, DC on September 11-13 to tell the totalitarians that you will not allow them to destroy America too. Be there as a living witness to the evils of collectivism.
Western Rifle Shooters Association adds:
We are reaching out to Oath Keepers to see if one or more of their reps can join us in DC, where we plan -- either as part of the larger 912 protest or as an independent event -- to swear as many good men and women of like mind as possible to the Constitutional Oath on the National Mall.
Updates will be on the Sipsey Street and WRSA blogs. Stay tuned for further developments.
Related reading:
Oath Keepers vs. oath breakers
Comments
I don't know if this will be of any use to anyone, but here is a link to the Militia Act of Nova Scotia, 1758:
h**p://www.geocities.com/akimoya/1758.html
I find the penalties for not maintaining the required provisions, of for not having a gun at all, interesting to say the least.
I have always thought that David T Hardy was the real purist among the heavy-duty RKBA lawyers admitted before the SCOTUS. Isn't early republic Clayton Cramer's expertise? Be interesting to hear his take on this, too.
All Heller did was to determine that you can have a working firearm in your home, that you can carry from room to room, after first asking and paying for permission from the state. That permission is in fact registration so Heller, in a way, did approve of firearms registration. It also permits the state to tell you what type of firearm you may have. How many times did Mr. Heller attempt to register a firearm before he was finally successful? Reasonable restrictions were also supported by the Heller decision. A right that you must ask and pay to exercise is no right at all. If you think I'm wrong in my analysis of Heller, please show me my mistakes?
Has anybody used a firearm in D.C. to defend themselves since the decision? If so, what happened to them?
All Heller did was to determine that you can have a working firearm in your home, that you can carry from room to room, after first asking and paying for permission from the state. That permission is in fact registration so Heller, in a way, did approve of firearms registration. It also permits the state to tell you what type of firearm you may have. How many times did Mr. Heller attempt to register a firearm before he was finally successful? Reasonable restrictions were also supported by the Heller decision. A right that you must ask and pay to exercise is no right at all. If you think I'm wrong in my analysis of Heller, please show me my mistakes?
Has anybody used a firearm in D.C. to defend themselves since the decision? If so, what happened to them?
Our side has the facts of history and is attempting to uphold original intent.
The other side has a modern understanding of custom and usage that supports registration and control based on a hatred of history and original intent.
In the end the side that can muster the greatest force will win.
The problem is will the so called leadership of the loyal opposition mainly the NRA compromise or undermine the grass roots again.
The anti-gun side has the police and military under control using the power of the purse.
Our side is fragile and un-organized but only because of shills within our mix.
We have the numbers we just have to rally the masses
Plant the seeds of repeal
Think Repeal, Demand Repeal
“ A well regulated Militia possibly being necessary to the security of a presumed free State, for those persons ( excepting Slaves ) who register their fire-arms, pay the assigned fees and taxes, submit to unannounced but regular searches and inspections by Selectmen, and upon approval by the Supreme Federal Magistrate, will be granted the privilege of the keeping and bearing of certain specified fire-arms, and said privilege shall not be unduly infringed upon.”
Seen this before.
Challenge for anyone willing to try it,
define the word right used in right of the people to keep and bear arms.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!