At least 21 dead at Virginia Tech

[Edward]

MG,

If gun control legislation in the United Kingdom mirrored that of the United States, do you think that the occurrence of tragedies similar to the two that you note above would?:

A. increase,

B. decrese, or

C. stay exactly the same

Thanks!

I suspect it would remain the same. I don't think incidents like this are either encourged or discouraged by the gun control regime. Nor, for that matter, any other generalised social/cultural situation. Some people are just sick. If something can be done about those individuals (and in many cases I would guess that does happen), fine. But to expect every one of those people to be identified before they do something horrendous is asking too much of society.

MG

MG

MG, do you really believe that there is no correlation between the availability of some thing and the frequency of use of that thing? Do you think that the same exact number of people would use prostitutes if prostitution were made legal? Do you think that the same exact number of people would use marijuana if it were made legal?

Now, I completely agree that, unfortunately, no matter what the law proscribes, there are always going to be some people who will be able to get their hands on exactly what they need to commit heinous crimes. However, why are you convinced that these nutters are so resourceful that, in EVERY instance, they would be able to get what they wanted (and you suggest as much by stating that gun control laws are of little consequence in these instances)? How many mass shooting incidents have occurred within the United States over the last 30 years utilizing classes of weapons whose possession has been outlawed (such as fully automatic weapons, hand grenades, flamethrowers, etc.)?

Do you think it possible, then, that effective gun laws might (and do in some countries) force at least some of these nutters to take different steps (resulting in less carnage) in pursuing their aims, if not reconsider their plans altogether? If U.S. citizens were (and had been going back 50 years) limited to legally owning no firearms other than one five-shot revolver and one shotgun, do you think that, at the very least, fewer people would have been killed by these nutters in shooting incidents over the years? In this regard, do you think it might be wise if high capacity (let's say greater than 10 rounds) ammunition clips were deemed illegal? Also, do you think it would be wise if other states followed California's lead and ban the possession of .50 caliber rifles? Or does none of this matter in the least?

[Edward]

Personally, with the kind of arseholes running our country, I'd like to keep the freedom to bear arms. Who knows when we might need them?

I think that you interpreted correctly the Constitution's emendament about arms. I think that at times the proposal of it was exactly to prevent the taking over from undemocratic federal government against single states. That is pretty obvious, considering that Jefferson and the Others lived in an epoch were undemocratic centralized Kingdoms ruled the world. A federation of armed free states (with the milicia) was the better cure for that. And the right to carry arm has more to do with it then with personal selfdefense. How ironic that Hamilton won the battle against Jefferson in the long run and today we have the more invasise and centralizad federal control over the country but the freedom to enteer in a shop and buy an assault gun.

Porcy62,

I do not quite agree with your assessment of the Second Amendment, but I do believe that you have to look elsewhere (i.e., the Ninth Amendment) to find support for the right to keep firearms for self-defense.

[White Lightning]

How many people got blown to shit in IRAQ today? *

Oh goody, a death toll throwdown.

Around 30,000 people a year die in the U.S. by gunshot.

40,000 a year die in car wrecks, lets ban all cars!

There is a slight difference, Beri: The sole purpose of guns is to kill. Death toll by cars is side effect of their primary use.

In any case, if I'm not mistaken, it's easier to get a gun's license than a driver's license in many places in the States. At least have the people who want to bear arms take a practical test as well as a theory test and force then to take some physical and mental exams.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

MG, do you really believe that there is no correlation between the availability of some thing and the frequency of use of that thing? Do you think that the same exact number of people would use prostitutes if prostitution were made legal? Do you think that the same exact number of people would use marijuana if it were made legal?

I don't think prostitution is illegal. As to the numbers involved, who knows?

A lot of people have used marijuana because it was forbidden. And a lot have avoided it because it was forbidden. Who knows what the difference between those numbers is?

There is clearly a correlation between availability and use. And speaking generally, I am greatly in favour of a very restrictive gun control regime. And also of a very restrictive gun manufacture regime, which doesn't exist anywhere in the world. I just don't see it as being relevant to this particular type of thing.

Now, I completely agree that, unfortunately, no matter what the law proscribes, there are always going to be some people who will be able to get their hands on exactly what they need to commit heinous crimes. However, why are you convinced that these nutters are so resourceful that, in EVERY instance, they would be able to get what they wanted (and you suggest as much by stating that gun control laws are of little consequence in these instances)? How many mass shooting incidents have occurred within the United States over the last 30 years utilizing classes of weapons whose possession has been outlawed (such as fully automatic weapons, hand grenades, flamethrowers, etc.)?

Do you think it possible, then, that effective gun laws might (and do in some countries) force at least some of these nutters to take different steps (resulting in less carnage) in pursuing their aims, if not reconsider their plans altogether? If U.S. citizens were (and had been going back 50 years) limited to legally owning no firearms other than one five-shot revolver and one shotgun, do you think that, at the very least, fewer people would have been killed by these nutters in shooting incidents over the years? In this regard, do you think it might be wise if high capacity (let's say greater than 10 rounds) ammunition clips were deemed illegal? Also, do you think it would be wise if other states followed California's lead and ban the possession of .50 caliber rifles? Or does none of this matter in the least?

I think these incidents are very rare. One of the reasons I think they're rare is because I think most of the people who could turn out to be mass murderers are picked up by society and treated in some way. It is possible to argue that those who manage to conceal their state of mind may well be more cunning and resourceful than the others. Whether that's so, I don't know.

What I DO know is that the justification for strict gun control (and manufacturing) regimes cannot rest on cases like this. It has to rest on cases of normal rational behaviour of people like criminals and terrorists. To my mind, that justification is clear and unanswerable.

MG

[porcy62]

Personally, with the kind of arseholes running our country, I'd like to keep the freedom to bear arms. Who knows when we might need them?

I think that you interpreted correctly the Constitution's emendament about arms. I think that at times the proposal of it was exactly to prevent the taking over from undemocratic federal government against single states. That is pretty obvious, considering that Jefferson and the Others lived in an epoch were undemocratic centralized Kingdoms ruled the world. A federation of armed free states (with the milicia) was the better cure for that. And the right to carry arm has more to do with it then with personal selfdefense. How ironic that Hamilton won the battle against Jefferson in the long run and today we have the more invasise and centralizad federal control over the country but the freedom to enteer in a shop and buy an assault gun.

Porcy62,

I do not quite agree with your assessment of the Second Amendment, but I do believe that you have to look elsewhere (i.e., the Ninth Amendment) to find support for the right to keep firearms for self-defense.

Well, it's my interpretation. As the infinite debate about it between eminent lawyers, historians, ecc. demonstrated, I am sure that we will not solve the problem of the correct interpretation in Organissimo Forum. Otherwise Jim and his band mates would have a professorship at Harward's School of law.

BTW, the Ninth may include the right to parking a car w/o being shoted by some armed nut who think you just stolen his place. Think about it.

[Claude]

How many people got blown to shit in IRAQ today? *

Oh goody, a death toll throwdown.

Around 30,000 people a year die in the U.S. by gunshot.

40,000 a year die in car wrecks, lets ban all cars!

Let's ban cars and guns alternatively for a week and see which ban results in the most chaos.

"Sorry boss, I can't come work today, I live in a dangerous community and I can't shoot my way to the office"

Edited April 20, 2007 by Claude

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

How many people got blown to shit in IRAQ today? *

Oh goody, a death toll throwdown.

Around 30,000 people a year die in the U.S. by gunshot.

40,000 a year die in car wrecks, lets ban all cars!

Let's ban cars and guns alternatively for a week and see which ban results in the most chaos.

"Sorry boss, I can't come work today, I live in a dangerous community and I can't shoot my way to the office"

MG

[Jazzmoose]

MG, do you really believe that there is no correlation between the availability of some thing and the frequency of use of that thing? Do you think that the same exact number of people would use prostitutes if prostitution were made legal? Do you think that the same exact number of people would use marijuana if it were made legal?

Uh...do you really believe that marijuana would be any easier to find if it were legal? If so, you must live in an unusual area...

[Edward]

MG, do you really believe that there is no correlation between the availability of some thing and the frequency of use of that thing? Do you think that the same exact number of people would use prostitutes if prostitution were made legal? Do you think that the same exact number of people would use marijuana if it were made legal?

Uh...do you really believe that marijuana would be any easier to find if it were legal? If so, you must live in an unusual area...

Well, gee, Jazzmoose, maybe not everyone is as well connected as you. But, uh..., anyway, who said anything about "finding" marijuana?

I have known people who would have liked to use marijuana but did not because their employers proscribed it (and conducted drug testing). This obviously would not have been an issue if marijuana had been legal.

Edited April 21, 2007 by Edward

[Edward]

Personally, with the kind of arseholes running our country, I'd like to keep the freedom to bear arms. Who knows when we might need them?

I think that you interpreted correctly the Constitution's emendament about arms. I think that at times the proposal of it was exactly to prevent the taking over from undemocratic federal government against single states. That is pretty obvious, considering that Jefferson and the Others lived in an epoch were undemocratic centralized Kingdoms ruled the world. A federation of armed free states (with the milicia) was the better cure for that. And the right to carry arm has more to do with it then with personal selfdefense. How ironic that Hamilton won the battle against Jefferson in the long run and today we have the more invasise and centralizad federal control over the country but the freedom to enteer in a shop and buy an assault gun.

Porcy62,

I do not quite agree with your assessment of the Second Amendment, but I do believe that you have to look elsewhere (i.e., the Ninth Amendment) to find support for the right to keep firearms for self-defense.

Well, it's my interpretation. As the infinite debate about it between eminent lawyers, historians, ecc. demonstrated, I am sure that we will not solve the problem of the correct interpretation in Organissimo Forum. Otherwise Jim and his band mates would have a professorship at Harward's School of law.

BTW, the Ninth may include the right to parking a car w/o being shoted by some armed nut who think you just stolen his place. Think about it.

Well, Porcy, you are certainly entitled to your interpretation. I was just politely trying to point out to you that one does not have to turn to the Second Amendment for the supposition that U.S. citizens have some right to possess firearms (if only for self-defense).

As for the Second Amendment, please know that since the Supreme Court's unanimous decision in Miller (1939), all federal appeals courts have agreed that the Second Amendment does NOT confer gun rights on individuals. There is no debate, despite the efforts of the NRA to promote an alternative interpretation.

As for your second point, you are missing the mark. I am in favor of extensive restrictions on the possession of firearms.

Edited April 21, 2007 by Edward

[Edward]

What I DO know is that the justification for strict gun control (and manufacturing) regimes cannot rest on cases like this. It has to rest on cases of normal rational behaviour of people like criminals and terrorists. To my mind, that justification is clear and unanswerable.

MG

I agree with you to a large extent - let's leave it at that

[porcy62]

Personally, with the kind of arseholes running our country, I'd like to keep the freedom to bear arms. Who knows when we might need them?

I think that you interpreted correctly the Constitution's emendament about arms. I think that at times the proposal of it was exactly to prevent the taking over from undemocratic federal government against single states. That is pretty obvious, considering that Jefferson and the Others lived in an epoch were undemocratic centralized Kingdoms ruled the world. A federation of armed free states (with the milicia) was the better cure for that. And the right to carry arm has more to do with it then with personal selfdefense. How ironic that Hamilton won the battle against Jefferson in the long run and today we have the more invasise and centralizad federal control over the country but the freedom to enteer in a shop and buy an assault gun.

Porcy62,

I do not quite agree with your assessment of the Second Amendment, but I do believe that you have to look elsewhere (i.e., the Ninth Amendment) to find support for the right to keep firearms for self-defense.

Well, it's my interpretation. As the infinite debate about it between eminent lawyers, historians, ecc. demonstrated, I am sure that we will not solve the problem of the correct interpretation in Organissimo Forum. Otherwise Jim and his band mates would have a professorship at Harward's School of law.

BTW, the Ninth may include the right to parking a car w/o being shoted by some armed nut who think you just stolen his place. Think about it.

Well, Porcy, you are certainly entitled to your interpretation. I was just politely trying to point out to you that one does not have to turn to the Second Amendment for the supposition that U.S. citizens have some right to possess firearms (if only for self-defense).

As for the Second Amendment, please know that since the Supreme Court's unanimous decision in Miller (1939), all federal appeals courts have agreed that the Second Amendment does NOT confer gun rights on individuals. There is no debate, despite the efforts of the NRA to promote an alternative interpretation.

As for your second point, you are missing the mark. I am in favor of extensive restrictions on the possession of firearms.

Edward,

thanks for poiting out. I am italian and live in Italy, so I am not so acquainted about U.S. Constitution's interpretive history, nor I knew of Supreme Court's, decision. My opinion is based on what I read on newspapers and books, so it might be that I missed something essential like this. So, in your opinion, and in Supreme Court's one, there is no gun rights to individuals in the Constitution, at least not clearly. About the Ninth Emendament, my intent was to pointed out that is so vague that you can read it in a lot of ways. I was not targetting you.

[jazzbo]

My sister lives in Richmond and sent me some information I didn't find anywhere else:

"The VT incident is still big in our news. Several pages of the paper

the last two days with photos and info on each of the victims. Two

were from our area. One had called home after the shooting in her dorm to

say she was safe and was talked into going to her next class by the

police and then was killed. What a roller coaster for her family,

thinking she was safe and then not hearing from her. A friend of mine

has a friend with a son on the VT rescue squad (he is only a sophomore)

and that will be difficult to get over, too. He said the cell phones

were going off in all the backpacks when they went in and they couldn't

answer them."

I can imagine who anguishing it would be to hear all those cellphones. . . . And that poor family that thought their daughter was safe and then. . . .

Edited April 22, 2007 by jazzbo

[Dan Gould]

As for the Second Amendment, please know that since the Supreme Court's unanimous decision in Miller (1939), all federal appeals courts have agreed that the Second Amendment does NOT confer gun rights on individuals. There is no debate, despite the efforts of the NRA to promote an alternative interpretation.

No longer true. In the past month or two, one of the circuit courts ruled that the second amendment does confer an individual right to own guns. With the circuit courts now in disagreement, its likely that this question will be taken up by the Supremes.

[Chuck Nessa]

With the circuit courts now in disagreement, its likely that this question will be taken up by the Supremes.

Can't wait to hear what this group has to say on the subject.

Can Barry Gordy overrule their decision?

[GA Russell]

Here's a news report that says that he fired over 100 rounds, often to the head, and suggests that he might have gotten away with the first two killings in the dorm if he had left it at that.

http://my.earthlink.net/article/top?guid=2...0422-1027507176

Tech Gunman Shot Victims Over 100 Times

By KRISTEN GELINEAU (Associated Press Writer)

From Associated Press

April 22, 2007 9:13 PM EDT

BLACKSBURG, Va. - Virginia Tech gunman Seung-Hui Cho was as mysterious in death as he was in life, leaving behind few clues for medical examiners.

Dr. William Massello, the assistant state medical examiner based in Roanoke, said Sunday that Cho died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound to his temple after firing enough shots to wound his 32 victims more than 100 times.

But there was nothing unusual about Cho's autopsy, he said, and nothing that would have hinted at any psychological problems that might have led him to commit the worst shooting massacre in modern U.S. history.

Pathologists sent blood samples for toxicology testing to determine if Cho was on drugs at the time of his rampage, but Massello said it could take as long as two weeks to get results.

Police are still searching for a motive. Cho, the 23-year-old English major who was described as reclusive and extremely shy, left behind a package of videos and letters railing against privilege and wealth, but did not say how he chose his victims.

Those victims apparently did not fight back against Cho's ambush. Massello said he did not recall any injuries suggesting a struggle. Many victims had defensive wounds, indicating they tried to shield themselves from Cho's gunfire, he said.

Massello said Cho hit many of his victims several times.

Authorities had to return to the victims' dorm rooms and homes to collect fingerprints so they could make identifications, according to an official close to the investigation who spoke on condition of anonymity because the probe is ongoing.

Several of the victims had gunshot wounds to the head, the official said.

Many of the victims' bodies left the medical examiner's office on Thursday, the official said, adding that several major airlines offered to transport the remains back to their families for free. The official was not sure if Cho's body was among those that had been released.

Psychologists and criminologists have suggested in recent days that Cho suffered from a mental illness, but Massello said such disorders are usually neurological or chemical in nature and unlikely to be identified during an autopsy, even if Cho's brain had been intact.

Massello said the autopsy reports are being typed, and he was unsure when they would be released. He said it took four doctors working for days to complete the autopsies on all 32 victims and Cho.

Also Sunday, state police said investigators have still been unable to definitively tie Cho to the dormitory where the first two victims were found. One of Cho's guns was linked to the first shooting, but authorities have no other evidence that ties him to that crime scene.

Police searched the dorm again for fingerprints and other evidence Saturday as a final sweep before students returned Monday, and were reviewing the information, investigators said.

[Soulstation1]

i wish they'd stopped airing the video of cho...

they should have aired it once

i feel sorry for cho's family

cho purchased extra clips off of ebay

[GA Russell]

cho purchased extra clips off of ebay

To be precise, eBay doesn't sell ammo. I found this at digg.com:

http://newsbusters.org/node/12212

ABC News: VT Killer 'Purchased Ammo' on Ebay... But Ebay Doesn't SELL Ammunition!

Posted by Warner Todd Huston on April 21, 2007 - 20:55.

ABC News tries its hand at sensationalism with a story on the VT killer buying "ammo" on the auction site Ebay, but muffs it badly getting all the relevant facts wrong. But it sure is a good headline... Ammo from eBay? VT Killer May Have Used Site

April 21, 2007 — ABCNews has learned that in the months before his shooting spree at Virginia Tech, Seung-Hui Cho may have purchased 20 rounds of ammunition through the online auction site eBay.

An eBay account holder who appears to be Cho purchased a two-pack of 10-round ammunition clips for a Walther P22 on March 22, 2007, less than a month before Cho killed 32 people and himself at Virginia Tech. The ammunition was purchased on eBay from Elk Ridge Shooting Supplies for the same type of weapon used by Cho in his bloody rampage last week.

Problem is, Ebay doesn't sell ammunition... it doesn't even sell guns. What the VT killer bought were clips (magazines), not "ammo"-- if it was even him .

Will ABC News correct itself? Will ABC News admit it was not only misinformed on an easily checked issue, but acted with tabloid journalism to boot?

Keep watching and let's see.

[Edward]

Dan, thanks for correcting me. I missed the recent decision by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. For what it's worth, I believe that the DC law banning residents from possessing handguns in their homes is unconstitutional on other grounds, namely the Ninth Amendment.

The 2001 decision by the Fifth Circuit is distinguishable insofar as that decision stated in non-binding language that individuals have Second Amendment rights. That Court concluded that the defendant in the case was properly convicted of possessing a gun in violation of a restraining order.

Edward,

thanks for poiting out. I am italian and live in Italy, so I am not so acquainted about U.S. Constitution's interpretive history, nor I knew of Supreme Court's, decision. My opinion is based on what I read on newspapers and books, so it might be that I missed something essential like this. So, in your opinion, and in Supreme Court's one, there is no gun rights to individuals in the Constitution, at least not clearly. About the Ninth Emendament, my intent was to pointed out that is so vague that you can read it in a lot of ways. I was not targetting you.

Porcy,

I am sorry; I did not mean to bite your head off. I just wanted to make it clear on which side of the issue I am. I completely agree with your assessment that the Ninth Amendment is vague, but I believe that the framers of the Consitution constructed it so for good reason.

As for the Second Amendment, I firmly believe that it does not provide for individual gun rights, and the Supreme Court (not the current one) has decided as much. I present below the text of Miller with certain portions placed in bold font. Again, this was a unanimous decision. The Court's lengthy discussion of the framers' intent with respect to this Amendment is also notable.

OPINION: [*175] [**816] [***1207] MR. JUSTICE McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.

An indictment in the District Court Western District Arkansas, charged that Jack Miller and Frank Layton

"did unlawfully, knowingly, wilfully, and feloniously transport in interstate commerce from the town of Claremore in the State of Oklahoma to the town of Siloam Springs in the State of Arkansas a certain firearm, to-wit, a double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, bearing identification number 76230, said defendants, at the time of so transporting said firearm in interstate commerce as aforesaid, not having registered said firearm as required by Section 1132d of Title 26, United States Code (Act of June 26, 1934, c. 737, Sec. 4 [§ 5], 48 Stat. 1237), and not having in their possession a stamp-affixed written order for said firearm as provided by Section 1132c, Title 26, United States Code (June 26, 1934, c. 737, Sec. 4, 48 Stat. 1237) and the regulations issued under authority of the said Act of Congress known as the 'National Firearms Act' approved June 26, 1934, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the United States." n1

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

n1 Act of June 26, 1934, c. 757, 48 Stat. 1236-1240, 26 U. S. C. § 1132.

That for the purposes of this Act --

"(a) The term 'firearm' means a shotgun or rifle having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length, or any other weapon, except a pistol or revolver, from which a shot is discharged by an explosive if such weapon is capable of being concealed on the person, or a machine gun, and includes a muffler or silencer for any firearm whether or not such firearm is included within the foregoing definition, [The Act of April 10, 1936, c. 169, 49 Stat. 1192 added the words] but does not include any rifle which is within the foregoing provisions solely by reason of the length of its barrel if the caliber of such rifle is .22 or smaller and if its barrel is sixteen inches or more in length.

"Sec. 3. (a) There shall be levied, collected, and paid upon firearms transferred in the continental United States a tax at the rate of $ 200 for each firearm, such tax to be paid by the transferor, and to be represented by appropriate stamps to be provided by the Commissioner, with the approval of the Secretary; and the stamps herein provided shall be affixed to the order for such firearm, hereinafter provided for. The tax imposed by this section shall be in addition to any import duty imposed on such firearm.

"Sec. 4. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to transfer a firearm except in pursuance of a written order from the person seeking to obtain such article, on an application form issued in blank in duplicate for that purpose by the Commissioner. Such order shall identify the applicant by such means of identification as may be prescribed by regulations under this Act: Provided, That, if the applicant is an individual, such identification shall include fingerprints and a photograph thereof.

"© Every person so transferring a firearm shall set forth in each copy of such order the manufacturer's number or other mark identifying such firearm, and shall forward a copy of such order to the Commissioner. The original thereof with stamps affixed, shall be returned to the applicant.

"(d) No person shall transfer a firearm which has previously been transferred on or after the effective date of this Act, unless such person, in addition to complying with subsection ©, transfers therewith the stamp-affixed order provided for in this section for each such prior transfer, in compliance with such regulations as may be prescribed under this Act for proof of payment of all taxes on such firearms.

"Sec. 5. (a) Within sixty days after the effective date of this Act every person possessing a firearm shall register, with the collector of the district in which he resides, the number or other mark identifying such firearm, together with his name, address, place where such firearm is usually kept, and place of business or employment, and, if such person is other than a natural person, the name and home address of an executive officer thereof: Provided, That no person shall be required to register under this section with respect to any firearm acquired after the effective date of, and in conformity with the provisions of, this Act.

"Sec. 6. It shall be unlawful for any person to receive or possess any firearm which has at any time been transferred in violation of section 3 or 4 of this Act.

"Sec. 11. It shall be unlawful for any person who is required to register as provided in section 5 hereof and who shall not have so registered, or any other person who has not in his possession a stamp-affixed order as provided in section 4 hereof, to ship, carry, or deliver any firearm in interstate commerce.

"Sec. 12. The Commissioner, with the approval of the Secretary, shall prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary for carrying the provisions of this Act into effect.

"Sec. 14. Any person who violates or fails to comply with any of the requirements of this Act shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than $ 2,000 or be imprisoned for not more than five years, or both, in the discretion of the court.

"Sec. 16. If any provision of this Act, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the remainder of the Act, and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances, shall not be affected thereby.

"Sec. 18. This Act may be cited as the 'National Firearms Act.'"

- - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[*176] A [**817] duly interposed demurrer alleged: The National Firearms Act is not a revenue measure but an attempt to usurp police power reserved [***1208] to the States, and is therefore unconstitutional. Also, it offends the inhibition of the Second Amendment to the Constitution -- "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

[*177] The District Court held that section eleven of the Act violates the Second Amendment. [**818] It accordingly sustained the demurrer and quashed the indictment.

The cause is here by direct appeal.

[***HR1] [1]

Considering Sonzinsky v. United States (1937), 300 U.S. 506, 513, and what was ruled in sundry causes arising [*178] under the Harrison Narcotic Act n2 -- United States v. Jin Fuey Moy (1916), 241 U.S. 394; United States v. Doremus (1919), 249 U.S. 86, 94; Linder v. United States (1925), 268 U.S. 5; Alston v. United States (1927), 274 U.S. 289; Nigro v. United States [***1209] (1928), 276 U.S. 332 -- the objection that the Act usurps police power reserved to the States is plainly untenable.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

n2 Act December 17, 1914, c. 1, 38 Stat. 785; February 24, 1919, c. 18, 40 Stat. 1057.

- - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[***HR2] [2]

[***HR3] [3]

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. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158.

[***HR4] [4]

The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power -- "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they [*179] were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia -- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

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. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

Blackstone's Commentaries, Vol. 2, Ch. 13, p. 409 points out "that king Alfred first settled a national militia in this kingdom," and traces the subsequent development and use of such forces.

Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, Book V, Ch. 1, contains an extended account of the Militia. It is there said: "Men of republican principles have been jealous of a standing army as dangerous to liberty." "In a militia, the character of the labourer, artificer, or tradesman, predominates over that of the soldier: in a standing army, that of the soldier predominates over every other character; and in this distinction seems to consist the essential difference between those two different species of military force."

"The American Colonies In The 17th Century," Osgood, Vol. 1, ch. XIII, affirms in reference to the early system of defense in New England --

"In all the colonies, as in England, the militia system was based on the principle of the assize of arms. This implied the general obligation of all adult male inhabitants to possess arms, and, with certain exceptions, to [*180] cooperate in the work of defence." "The possession of arms also implied the possession of ammunition, and the authorities paid quite as much attention [**819] to the latter as to the former." "A year later [1632] it was ordered that any single man who had not furnished himself with arms might be put out to service, and this became a permanent part of the legislation [***1210] of the colony [Massachusetts]."

Also "Clauses intended to insure the possession of arms and ammunition by all who were subject to military service appear in all the important enactments concerning military affairs. Fines were the penalty for delinquency, whether of towns or individuals. According to the usage of the times, the infantry of Massachusetts consisted of pikemen and musketeers. The law, as enacted in 1649 and thereafter, provided that each of the former should be armed with a pike, corselet, head-piece, sword, and knapsack. The musketeer should carry a 'good fixed musket,' not under bastard musket bore, not less than three feet, nine inches, nor more than four feet three inches in length, a priming wire, scourer, and mould, a sword, rest, bandoleers, one pound of powder, twenty bullets, and two fathoms of match. The law also required that two-thirds of each company should be musketeers."

The General Court of Massachusetts, January Session 1784, provided for the organization and government of the Militia. It directed that the Train Band should "contain all able bodied men, from sixteen to forty years of age, and the Alarm List, all other men under sixty years of age, . . ." Also, "That every non-commissioned officer and private soldier of the said militia not under the controul of parents, masters or guardians, and being of sufficient ability therefor in the judgment of the Selectmen of the town in which he shall dwell, shall equip himself, and be constantly provided with a good fire arm," &c.

By an Act passed April 4, 1786 the New York Legislature directed: "That every able-bodied Male Person, being [*181] a Citizen of this State, or of any of the United States, and residing in this State, (except such Persons as are hereinafter excepted) and who are of the Age of Sixteen, and under the Age of Forty-five Years, shall, by the Captain or commanding Officer of the Beat in which such Citizens shall reside, within four Months after the passing of this Act, be enrolled in the Company of such Beat. . . . That every Citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within three Months thereafter, provide himself, at his own Expense, with a good Musket or Firelock, a sufficient Bayonet and Belt, a Pouch with a Box therein to contain not less than Twenty-four Cartridges suited to the Bore of his Musket or Firelock, each Cartridge containing a proper Quantity of Powder and Ball, two spare Flints, a Blanket and Knapsack; . . ."

The General Assembly of Virginia, October, 1785, (12 Hening's Statutes) declared, "The defense and safety of the commonwealth depend upon having its citizens properly armed and taught the knowledge of military duty."

It further provided for organization and control of the Militia and directed that "All free male persons between the ages of eighteen and fifty years," with certain exceptions, "shall be inrolled or formed into companies." "There shall be a private muster of every company once in two months."

Also that "Every officer and soldier shall appear at his respective muster-field on the day appointed, by eleven o'clock in the forenoon, armed, equipped, and accoutred, as follows: . . . every non-commissioned officer and private with a good, clean musket carrying an ounce ball, and three feet eight inches long in the barrel, with a good bayonet and iron ramrod well fitted thereto, a cartridge box properly made, to contain and secure twenty cartridges fitted to his musket, a good knapsack and canteen, and moreover, each non-commissioned officer and private shall have at every muster one pound of good [*182] powder, and four pounds of lead, including twenty blind cartridges; and each serjeant shall have a pair of moulds fit to cast balls for their respective companies, to be purchased by the commanding officer out [***1211] of the monies arising on delinquencies. Provided, That the militia of the counties westward of the Blue Ridge, and the counties below adjoining thereto, shall not be obliged to be armed with muskets, but may have good rifles with proper accoutrements, in lieu thereof. And every of the said officers, non-commissioned officers, and privates, shall constantly keep the aforesaid arms, accoutrements, and ammunition, ready to be produced whenever called for by his commanding officer. If any private shall make it appear to the satisfaction of [**820] the court hereafter to be appointed for trying delinquencies under this act that he is so poor that he cannot purchase the arms herein required, such court shall cause them to be purchased out of the money arising from delinquents."

Most if not all of the States have adopted provisions touching the right to keep and bear arms. Differences in the language employed in these have naturally led to somewhat variant conclusions concerning the scope of the right guaranteed. But none of them seem to afford any material support for the challenged ruling of the court below.

In the margin some of the more important opinions and comments by writers are cited. n3

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

n3 Concerning The Militia -- Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252; Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275; Fife v. State, 31 Ark. 455; Jeffers v. Fair, 33 Ga. 347; Salina v. Blaksley, 72 Kan. 230; 83 P. 619; People v. Brown, 253 Mich. 537; 235 N. W. 245; Aymette v. State, 2 Humphr. (Tenn.) 154; State v. Duke, 42 Texas 455; State v. Workman, 35 W. Va. 367; 14 S. E. 9; Cooley's Constitutional Limitations, Vol. 1, p. 729; Story on The Constitution, 5th Ed., Vol. 2, p. 646; Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, Vol. X, p. 471, 474.

- - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[*183] We are unable to accept the conclusion of the court below and the challenged judgment must be reversed. The cause will be remanded for further proceedings.

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS took no part in the consideration or decision of this cause.

Of course, it is now readily apparent that stare decisis mean very little to the current Court. This is evident by the Court's recent decision relating to abortion, which, in my opinion, controverts Roe. (I was going to quote from Roe, but I decided it best to leave that topic to other threads.)