For many gays, the right to own and CARRY a firearm is a matter of life and death. That's because gays are frequent targets of violent crimes...Tom] Palmer, 50, said that his gun rescued him 25 years ago when he was approached by a group of men in San Jose. Palmer, who is gay, said he believed the men were targeting him because of his sexual orientation. He said he and a friend started to run away, but then he took action.
"I turned around and showed them the business side of my gun and told them if they took another step, I'd shoot," he said, adding that that ended the confrontation.Palmer moved to the District in 1975 and lives in the U Street NW corridor, where police have struggled lately to curb assaults and other crimes. He said he considers it a fairly safe neighborhood, although his home was broken into once. He works as director of educational programs for the Cato Institute and travels to war-torn countries including Iraq.
He keeps a shotgun and several pistols stored in Colorado and Virginia. Guns have been used in his family for generations. "My mother always had two, and she kept one under her bed," Palmer said.
From 1995 to 2005, according to the FBI, more than 13,000 incidents of anti-gay hate violence were reported by law enforcement agencies. When you consider that fewer than half of all violent crimes are reported, it is certain that even this number seriously underestimates the problem.The D.C. law is so draconian that only current and retired police officers are allowed to carry a concealed weapon. Now, the Federal Court of Appeals has already struck down the portion of D.C. gun laws that bars the ownership of guns, however simply owning a gun would not have saved Tom Palmer. The issue of carrying a gun is an issue of life and eath to most gays. That is the crux of the Supreme Court case that is at issue.
Worse still, gays are often afraid to report anti-gay crimes. There is a sorry history of hostile or skeptical police response, public disclosure of the victim’s sexual orientation, and even physical abuse by the officers themselves. Investigative bias and lack of police training further complicate the picture. The upshot is that gays must be responsible for their own defense; they cannot rely solely on law enforcement for it.
It makes for strange political bedfellows because groups like the NRA are banding together with groups like GLBT and other gay rights groups. The 2nd amendment has been one of the most debated in our Constitution...
a well-regulated militia as "being necessary to the security of a free State" and prohibits infringement of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
To this day, there continues to be a debate about the nature of the wording. Everything I know about the 2nd amendment I learned from the book, Constitutional Chaos. There are those that believe the wording in the second amendment implies a collective group's, forming a militia, right to own a gun, but not a right for each individual to own a gun. In my opinion, those folks would be wrong. First of all, the wording of the second amendment is not much different from any other amendment that guarantees an individual's right. For instance, here is the first amendment...
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Now, no one interprets the first amendment as being collectivist even though that amendment also has the phrase the right of the people. No one is proclaiming that in order to speak freely I need to get a group and speak together. Yet, that is exactly what some are claiming about the second amendment.
Furthermore, the collectivist arguement totally disregards much of the writing of all the founding fathers. Here is a sample...
No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
---Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776
and...
Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
---Tenche Coxe, The
Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
and...
W]hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.
---Richard Henry Lee, The
Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
In other words, the founding fathers saw individuals as the militia itself and they saw the ability to own a gun as a vital INDIVIDUAL right. Being able to protect oneself is a vital right and that right is guaranteed by the second amendment.
This brings me back to this case, and specifically what it can mean. Protecting oneself is not something that is limited to your home. Gays, more than most groups, know that all to well. Banning a law abiding individual from carrying a gun limits their ability to protect themself. The SC has an opportunity to clarify this particular issue as it relates to the 2nd amendment, and many groups will be watching.
5 comments:
Most American men are unaware that they are in the army, or, as described by the Militia Act of 1903 (popularly known as the Dick Act), the unorganized militia. The main purpose of the Dick Act was to sort out over a century of confusion over the relationship between the state militias (now known as the National Guard) and the federal forces.
The 1903 law was the first of many laws hammered out to create the system now in use. But in the last century, not much attention has been paid to the little known "unorganized militia" angle. This force contained every able-bodied adult male who was not a part of the organized militia
The 1903 law legalized the right not to be part of the organized militia, because a 1792 law had mandated that every adult male be part of the militia. The problem was, most men didn't want to be bothered.
To deal with this, state governors created two classes of militia; paid (who trained and were armed and organized into units) and unorganized (everyone else.)
The militia is a state institution, and predates the founding of the United States. It harkens back to the ancient tribal practice, where every able bodied male turned out to defend the tribe. During the colonial period, this really only meant anything in frontier areas, where hostile Indians sometimes required the use an armed militia force. In the late 18th century, only about ten percent of American families possessed a firearm, usually a musket or shotgun. Weapon ownership was much more common on the frontier, and in more settled areas, men with muskets often joined the organized militia more to be with their hunting buddies, than to prepare for war. The urban militia was sometimes used as a paramilitary force, when there was civil disorder or some kind of natural disaster. During the American Revolution, the militia served mainly as a police force, especially since about a third of the population were loyalists.
Currently, the "unorganized militia" is expected to come up when the Supreme Court again considers the laws pertaining to the right to possess firearms. Many localities have outlawed or regulated that right, which is guaranteed (but not precisely spelled out) in the Constitution. Nevertheless, if you are an adult American male between the ages of 17 and 45, you are part of the militia, whether you knew it or not, whether or not you want to be, and whether or not you are armed. Just so you know.
Jeffrey Nihart
Most American men are unaware that they are in the army, or, as described by the Militia Act of 1903 (popularly known as the Dick Act), the unorganized militia. The main purpose of the Dick Act was to sort out over a century of confusion over the relationship between the state militias (now known as the National Guard) and the federal forces. The 1903 law was the first of many laws hammered out to create the system now in use. But in the last century, not much attention has been paid to the little known "unorganized militia" angle. This force contained every able-bodied adult male who was not a part of the organized militia
The 1903 law legalized the right not to be part of the organized militia, because a 1792 law had mandated that every adult male be part of the militia. The problem was, most men didn't want to be bothered. To deal with this, state governors created two classes of militia; paid (who trained and were armed and organized into units) and unorganized (everyone else.)
The militia is a state institution, and predates the founding of the United States. It harkens back to the ancient tribal practice, where every able bodied male turned out to defend the tribe. During the colonial period, this really only meant anything in frontier areas, where hostile Indians sometimes required the use an armed militia force. In the late 18th century, only about ten percent of American families possessed a firearm, usually a musket or shotgun. Weapon ownership was much more common on the frontier, and in more settled areas, men with muskets often joined the organized militia more to be with their hunting buddies, than to prepare for war. The urban militia was sometimes used as a paramilitary force, when there was civil disorder or some kind of natural disaster. During the American Revolution, the militia served mainly as a police force, especially since about a third of the population were loyalists.
Currently, the "unorganized militia" is expected to come up when the Supreme Court again considers the laws pertaining to the right to possess firearms. Many localities have outlawed or regulated that right, which is guaranteed (but not precisely spelled out) in the Constitution. Nevertheless, if you are an adult American male between the ages of 17 and 45, you are part of the militia, whether you knew it or not, whether or not you want to be, and whether or not you are armed. Just so you know.
Jeffrey Nihart
Very well researched and thought out...excellent comment.
Thanks for pointing out the 1st Amendment wording "the right of the people peaceably to assemble" which obviously does not refer to a collective right. I had never noticed it before.
I believe the 10% gun ownership figure mentioned in the 2nd blog was originally arrived at several years ago through flawed research by a professor who read wills of that era. As a gun owner and a former legal secretary I'm aware that many people (if not most) do not leave their guns by way of probate but instead give them directly to the desired recipient. Except for that quibble, I found both blogs interesting and informative and have bookmarked your site for future reading.
Thanks again.
grandmother
Excellent comment by Mr. Nihart, but let us not believe that the National Guard is a State militia.
It is a National militia serving in the various states and can be called to action by the State Governor if needed. However, the National Guard is organized, supplied, and funded soley by the U.S. Government, and at anytime can be directed by that government to serve anywhere the National Government so desires. Also, it can be disbanded at any time by the National Government, if by no other means than by simply cutting off the funding.
Post a Comment