The series of posts on Jack Kelly's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette 8 October piece entitled The meaning of militia has been moved to Legal and Political.
Unfortunately, I cannot find it there, and thought that I would like to offer, for your thought and comment my e-mail to Kelly, with respect to his article. Same follows below. I have not had any response from Mr. Kelly, as of today, and may never get any, thats life.
Read your most interesting piece, as above titled in today's P-G, and a few points come to mind. Your thinking on this matter serves well, the interest of preserving the most basic of our civil rights, these days, under serious threat.
Re the anti-gunners not having read, or misrepresenting the opinion in Miller by Justice McReynolds, quite possibly one sees BOTH possibilities in play. More on Miller follows.
You also mentioned the use of short barreled shotguns, in the context of Viet Nam veterans "arguing the point", that is the military utility of such weapons. More important is the fact that World War 1 veterans, a considerable number were still with us in 1939 might have argued the point even more forcefully, as might have former military personnel who had served during the years between the wars, in Caribbean and Central American locations, where one suspects that shotguns were also utilized by the U.S. Army, and possibly The Marines too. Short Barreled shotguns, I believe also had seen use, by the military, in this country, during those years.
What I have always been curious about was the following. Some of the justices sitting on the court in 1939 might have served during World War 1, and as such would likely have been aware of use by the military, of short barreled shotguns, possibly via personal experience during that war. Additionally, the use of short barreled shotguns during WW1 and afterward, by The Army, had not been a "secret", so far as I know, which leaves one wondering as to what might have prompted The Court to rule as it did, disregarding the evidence of both contemporary, and recent history.
Additionally, you stated that "The Second Amendment doesn't give someone the right to own a bazooka or a tank, was a reasonable proposition". Regarding "crew served weapons", one might have a point, however please consider the following. Miller revolved about a finding that a short barreled or sawed-off shotgun might be restricted because "the defendants did not show there was military utility in short barreled shotguns". The same claim re for the ownership of "bazookas or tanks", which are part of the regular inventory of the military, as were Browning Automatic Rifles, would have been laughable, it seems.
Another thing that I've long been curious about was the following. The Court, in Miller, heard only the government's side of argument, as Miller was not represented at Supreme Court proceedings. Where was THE NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION, which certainly should have been "interested" in this case, and certainly did have the requisite legal talent available. Might NRA in 1939, as they have been in other instances since, at great cost to law abiding gun owners, been busy showing their "reasonable and or gentlemanly nature"? Might they then, as they have at other times since, been all to busy demonstrating a "spirit of compromise", which as above mentioned, has cost law abiding gun owners so much, one wonders as to such considerations. This last point is somewhat far removed from your comments, however as mentioned above, it is something that I have long been curious about.
In appreciation of your thoughtful attention, and such response as you feel appropriate.
Alan Schultz
Unfortunately, I cannot find it there, and thought that I would like to offer, for your thought and comment my e-mail to Kelly, with respect to his article. Same follows below. I have not had any response from Mr. Kelly, as of today, and may never get any, thats life.
Read your most interesting piece, as above titled in today's P-G, and a few points come to mind. Your thinking on this matter serves well, the interest of preserving the most basic of our civil rights, these days, under serious threat.
Re the anti-gunners not having read, or misrepresenting the opinion in Miller by Justice McReynolds, quite possibly one sees BOTH possibilities in play. More on Miller follows.
You also mentioned the use of short barreled shotguns, in the context of Viet Nam veterans "arguing the point", that is the military utility of such weapons. More important is the fact that World War 1 veterans, a considerable number were still with us in 1939 might have argued the point even more forcefully, as might have former military personnel who had served during the years between the wars, in Caribbean and Central American locations, where one suspects that shotguns were also utilized by the U.S. Army, and possibly The Marines too. Short Barreled shotguns, I believe also had seen use, by the military, in this country, during those years.
What I have always been curious about was the following. Some of the justices sitting on the court in 1939 might have served during World War 1, and as such would likely have been aware of use by the military, of short barreled shotguns, possibly via personal experience during that war. Additionally, the use of short barreled shotguns during WW1 and afterward, by The Army, had not been a "secret", so far as I know, which leaves one wondering as to what might have prompted The Court to rule as it did, disregarding the evidence of both contemporary, and recent history.
Additionally, you stated that "The Second Amendment doesn't give someone the right to own a bazooka or a tank, was a reasonable proposition". Regarding "crew served weapons", one might have a point, however please consider the following. Miller revolved about a finding that a short barreled or sawed-off shotgun might be restricted because "the defendants did not show there was military utility in short barreled shotguns". The same claim re for the ownership of "bazookas or tanks", which are part of the regular inventory of the military, as were Browning Automatic Rifles, would have been laughable, it seems.
Another thing that I've long been curious about was the following. The Court, in Miller, heard only the government's side of argument, as Miller was not represented at Supreme Court proceedings. Where was THE NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION, which certainly should have been "interested" in this case, and certainly did have the requisite legal talent available. Might NRA in 1939, as they have been in other instances since, at great cost to law abiding gun owners, been busy showing their "reasonable and or gentlemanly nature"? Might they then, as they have at other times since, been all to busy demonstrating a "spirit of compromise", which as above mentioned, has cost law abiding gun owners so much, one wonders as to such considerations. This last point is somewhat far removed from your comments, however as mentioned above, it is something that I have long been curious about.
In appreciation of your thoughtful attention, and such response as you feel appropriate.
Alan Schultz