Clark
09-08-2007, 12:45 PM
Not true
Re: "Militia only" (letters, Aug. 20).
The letter writer quotes the Second Amendment. He states the first part "a well regulated militia" is like the National Guard today. This is not true.
When the amendment was written, the "local militia" consisted of farmers, bankers and storekeepers who would join ranks to defend their homes and towns when an alarm was sounded. Most had no formal training and responded armed with their personal hunting muskets and shotguns.
The framers of the Bill of Rights wanted to be sure their individual right to own personal firearms was not infringed upon. This is documented in notes and letters between them at the time of the writing.
Over the years, the United States courts have clearly indicated it applies to the people, not the National Guard. As an example, the U.S. Court of Appeals decision for the D.C. Circuit in Parker v. D.C. (2007) and in the Fifth Circuit's decision in U.S. v. Emerson (2001) both found the Second Amendment was an individual right and rejected the argument that it applies only to militias organized through the military.
The writer could argue that today times no longer support this argument, but I disagree. States and cities that have authorized the right to carry a concealed weapon have seen their crime rates decline. Some states and cities have made it tougher to own firearms, which resulted in very high crime rates.
Common sense dictates that when only the criminals are armed, it makes their "job" a lot easier. It creates more victims, not less.
NEREIDA LINGLE
http://www.courierpostonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070907/OPINION/709070331/1047&template=printart
Re: "Militia only" (letters, Aug. 20).
The letter writer quotes the Second Amendment. He states the first part "a well regulated militia" is like the National Guard today. This is not true.
When the amendment was written, the "local militia" consisted of farmers, bankers and storekeepers who would join ranks to defend their homes and towns when an alarm was sounded. Most had no formal training and responded armed with their personal hunting muskets and shotguns.
The framers of the Bill of Rights wanted to be sure their individual right to own personal firearms was not infringed upon. This is documented in notes and letters between them at the time of the writing.
Over the years, the United States courts have clearly indicated it applies to the people, not the National Guard. As an example, the U.S. Court of Appeals decision for the D.C. Circuit in Parker v. D.C. (2007) and in the Fifth Circuit's decision in U.S. v. Emerson (2001) both found the Second Amendment was an individual right and rejected the argument that it applies only to militias organized through the military.
The writer could argue that today times no longer support this argument, but I disagree. States and cities that have authorized the right to carry a concealed weapon have seen their crime rates decline. Some states and cities have made it tougher to own firearms, which resulted in very high crime rates.
Common sense dictates that when only the criminals are armed, it makes their "job" a lot easier. It creates more victims, not less.
NEREIDA LINGLE
http://www.courierpostonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070907/OPINION/709070331/1047&template=printart