From the Radio Free Michigan archives ftp://141.209.3.26/pub/patriot If you have any other files you'd like to contribute, e-mail them to bj496@Cleveland.Freenet.Edu. ------------------------------------------------ Jun 15 10:15 EDT 1991 With a discussion with Don Kates added 2/22/92 by John Grossbohlin There are two things going on here: the history of the 2nd Amendment shows that the explicit wording concerning "militia" in the first part is an "add-on" that merely compliments the RKBA portion. The 2nd Amendment actually codifies common law practice of keeping and bearing arms for the purpose of BOTH common defense and self-defense. Indeed, some Court decisions DO recognize that handguns are implicitly arms that are protected: (1) State v. Kessler, 289 Or. 359, 614 P.2nd 94, at 95, at 98 (1980). "We are not unmindful that there is current controversy over the wisdom of a right to bear arms, and that the original motivations for such a provision might not seem compelling if debated as a new issue. Our task, however, in construing a constitutional provision is to respect the principles given the status of constitutional guarantees and limitations by the drafters; it is not to abandon these principles when this fits the needs of the moment." "Therefore, the term 'arms' as used by the drafters of the constitution probably was intended to include those weapons used by settlers for both personal and military defense. The term 'arms' was not limited to firearms, but included several handcarried weapons used for defense." (2) State v. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222, at 224 (1921). "We are of the opinion, however, that 'pistol' ex vi termini is properly included within the word 'arms,' and that the right to bear such arms cannot be infringed. The historical use of pistols as 'arms' of offense and defense is beyond controversy." "The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical construction." (3) State v. Rosenthal, 75 VT. 295, 55 A. 610, at 611 (1903). "The people of the state have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state. *** The result is that Ordinance No. 10, so far as it relates to the carrying of a pistol, is inconsistent with and repugnant to the Constitution and the law of the state, and it is therefore to that extent, void." Indeed, the "War Department" distributed a manual during WWII that recommended to citizens that they keep "weapons which a guerilla in civilian clothes can carry without attracting attention. They must be easily portable and easily concealed. First among these is the pistol." (Bert Levy, Guerilla Warfare (New York: Penguin Books, 1942)), p. 55. Also, the US government supplied the single-shot .45 Liberator pistol to anti-Nazi partisans (cost: $1.75) for the explicit purpose of killing soldiers to obtain their gear. ------------------------------------------------------------------- This article appeared in the November 1984 American Rifleman. Mr. Halbrook is author of "That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right," that is based on previously unknown material. Holding a Ph.D., J.D., his book is the most comprehensive work to ever appear on the Second Amendment. ------------------------------------------------------------------- To Bear Arms for Self-Defense: our Second Amendment Heritage By Stephen P. Halbrook More than any other freedom guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment "right of the people to keep and bear arms" has been subjected by its enemies to Orwellian Newspeak. In George Orwell's prophetic 1984, Big Brother was not content merely with prohibiting possession of firearms by any of his subjects. Totalitarian rule also required that words be rendered meaningless so that subversive thoughts could be suppressed. Today, anti-gun advocates claim that "the people" means the National Guard only, that to "bear" does not mean carry, and that pistols are not "arms." The emasculation of the Second Amendment through such linguistic manipulation is being attempted by various groups. The National Coalition to Ban Handguns (NCBH) has been prominent in supporting the handgun ban in Morton Grove, Illinois. Plaintiff's lawyers who claim handguns have no social utility are suing gun manufacturers whenever a gun is used in crime. Yet the most startling source of this Orwellian Newspeak is Don B. Kates, Jr., author of numerous pro-gun articles. Kates recently has taken to arguing that the Second Amendment "right of *the people* to ... bear arms" serves "to guarantee the right to carry them outside the home only in the course of military service." (Ref. 1) Before Professor Kates filed his brief asking the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn Morton Grove's handgun ban (the NRA filed a separate brief), this author and other scholars advised him that there was considerable evidence that the Founding Fathers intended the words "bear arms" to mean carry them in general, not necessarily in a militia context. (Ref. 2) Kates, however, respectfully declined to change his argument that the right to keep arms is restricted to military service. (Ref. 3) Ironically, Kates' argument was identical to that of Handgun Control, Inc. (HCI), which asked the Supreme Court *not* to hear the Morton Grove case. Although the real issue in Morton Grove is whether the Second Amendment protects the right to "keep" arms rather than to bear them, as HCI argued: "The language of the second amendment suggests that its purpose is limited to protecting organized and effective state militias. The terms 'arms' and 'bear arms' have always been associated with organized military activity." (Ref. 4) The chief authority HCI cited for this proposition is Noah Webster's famous 1828 dictionary. Anyone who looks up Webster's definition of "bear," as referenced in HCI's brief, will be startled to find the very opposite of what HCI claimed: "to wear; to bear as a mark of authority or distinction; as, to *bear* a sword, a badge, a name; to *bear* arms in a coat." (Ref. 5) HCI also refers to the definition of "arms," which again fails to support its claim: "weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body." (Ref. 6) Consistent with the meaning of "bear arms" as carrying or wearing weapons on the person or inside one's clothing, Webster defines "pistol" as "a small fire-arm, or the smallest fire-arm used....Small pistols are carried in the pocket." (Ref. 7) As to who has the right to bear arms, Webster defined "the people" as "the commonalty, as distinct of men of rank." (Ref. 8) Webster was certainly in a position to know what the Second Amendment phrase "bear arms" meant. He was a prominent federalist who wrote the first major pamphlet in support of the Constitution when it was proposed in 1787. Indeed, Webster states: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every Kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed...." (Ref. 9) When the Morton Grove case was still before the federal Court of Appeals, unassailable evidence was presented that the respective framers of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments intended that the individual right to keep arms, including pistols, was protected from infringement by the federal, state and local governments.The clear intent of the framers, however, was disregarded by the Court. In its opinion upholding the Morton Grove gun ban, the Court of Appeals held the framers' intent to be "irrelevant." (Ref. 10) By contrast, the U.S. Supreme Court has declared again and again that the Constitution's provisions must be interpreted according to the intent of the framers. (Ref. 11) Did the Framers intend the Second Amendment to protect a right to carry guns for self-protection? Texas A&M Professor Lawrence Cress thinks not. His mistaken belief that "we know little about the Second Amendment's reception in the States" has led him to argue that the Founding Fathers would have been shocked by the idea that citizens could bear firearms for self-defense. (Ref. 12) Kates bases his similar argument that there is no right to bear arms outside of militia service on an unpublished thesis of a law s tudent. Yet Cress, Kates, et al are well aware (Ref. 13) that the first state Declaration of Rights to use the term "bear arms" was that of Pennsylvania in 1776: "That the people have a right to bear arm *in defense of themselves* and the State." (Ref. 14) ------------------------------------------------------------------- Italian philosopher Beccaria influenced Founding Father John Adams as he did Thomas Jefferson. Adams gave his copy of the 1775 English translation of the Beccaria essay *On Crimes and Punishments* to his son Thomas B. Adams in 1800. (Photo) Discovered by this author, this manuscript shows Jefferson copied portions of Beccaria's essay in Italian. (Photo) Translation False is the idea of utility (False ideas of utility) that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; there has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty -- so dear to men, so dear to the enlightened legislator -- and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer? Such laws only make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailant; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They ought to designated as laws not preventative but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantage of a universal decree. ------------------------------------------------------------------- It is remarkable that the above translation describes the anti-gunners position even today. The more things change, the more they remain the same! -- dw ------------------------------------------------------------------- That to "bear" arms simply meant to carry them is clear in a game bill drafted by Thomas Jefferson and proposed by James Madison (draftsman of the Second Amendment) in the Virginia legislature. That bill would have fined one who hunted deer out of season, and if within a year "he should bear a gun out of his inclosed ground, unless whilst performing military duty," he shall be in violation of his recognizance. The game violator would have to go back to court for "every such bearing of a gun" to be bound to his good behavior. (Ref. 15) To "bear" a gun thus meant to carry it about one's hands or one's person, as for instance a deer hunter might do. "Bearing arms" is not militia duty only, for the above addresses the "bearing of a gun" by "any person" when *not* "performing military duty." Further, while the game bill would have restricted the carrying of scatterguns and other long guns for hunting, it would not have prohibited carrying pistols for self-defense. At that time, "one species of fire-arms, the pistol, is never called a gun." (Ref. 16) Previous game legislation had imposed a penalty of 20 lashes on a violator's back (Ref. 17), so that the above was intended to make the law more humane. Jefferson strongly relied on the penal reform theories of Cesare Beccaria, whose *Essay on Crime and Punishments* (1764) was partly responsible for the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. "In America of the revolutionary period, the little book was more influential than any other single book, its spirit incorporated in documents such as ... the Bill of Rights." (Ref. 18) Beccaria's influence on the Second Amendment only recently came to light. Jefferson kept a Common Place Book where he copied his favorite passages from legal writers, such as Beccaria, in the months before drafting the Declaration of Independence. The Common Place Book "may well be considered as the source-book and repertory of Jefferson's ideas on government." (Ref. 19) Among the passages Jefferson copied was Beccaria's denunciation of laws against the bearing of arms. Beccaria undoubtedly had pistols in mind when he referred to laws which forbid "di portar le armi" -- "the carrying of arms" or, in the 1776 edition, "to wear arms." These laws made things worse for crime victims and better for their assailants. Since they punished victims rather than criminals, those laws were relics of a barbaric past which progress would sweep away along with the rack and screw. The wisdom of Beccaria was a source of Jefferson's proposed Virginia Constitution of 1776 which provided: "No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (Ref. 20) The Italian philosopher also influenced John Adams. Adams began his final opening statement in the Boston Massacre trial in 1770 with a quote from Beccaria, and in the course of his speech added that "the inhabitants had a right to arm themselves at that time, for their defence...." (Ref. 21) Adam's own views against disarming the people were consistent with the following favorite passage from Beccaria which he copied in his diary: "Every Act of Authority, of one Man over another for which there is not an absolute Necessity, is tyrannical." (Ref. 22) Elsewhere, Adams upheld the right of "arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion,.... in private self-defense...." (Ref. 23) Bearing arms for personal protection was an unquestioned rights in the minds of the Founding Fathers, as the following passages reveal. Before the Revolution, James Iredell, who would be prominent in the Constitution ratification struggle and later a Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, wrote his mother: Be not afraid of the Pistols you have sent me. They may be necessary Implements of self Defense tho' I dare say I shall never have Occasion to use them .... It is a Satisfaction to have the means of Security at hand if we are in no danger, as I never expect to be. Confide in my prudence and self-regard for the proper use of them, and you need have no Apprehension. (Ref. 24) In 1775, North Carolina's delegation to the Continental Congress, all of whose members would become prominent state or federal leaders, resolved: "It is the Right of every *English* Subject to be prepared with Weapons for his Defense." (Ref. 25) William Henry Drayton, a prominent Revolutionary leader and Chief Justice of the South Carolina Supreme Court, according to his son, "Always had about his person, a dirk and a pair of pocket pistols; for defense of his life..." (Ref. 26) In Vermont, Ethan Allen and his friends "never walked out without at least a case of pistols." (Ref. 27) Lodging with a Quaker on one occasion, Ethan's brother Ira recalled: We took our pistols out of our holsters and carried them in with us. He looked at the pistols saying 'What doth thee do with these things?' He was answered, 'Nothing amongst our friends,' but we were Green Mountain Boys, and meant to protect our persons and property...." (Ref. 28) Just 10 days after James Madison proposed the Bill of Rights to Congress in 1789, Tench Coxe wrote what became the Second Amendment confirmed the people "in their right to keep and bear their private arms." (Ref. 29) James Madison endorsed the widely published article in which these words appear. (Ref. 30) In later years, Coxe referred to muskets, rifles, and pistols as "arms," (Ref. 31) and to "the right to own and keep and use arms and consequently of *self-defense* and of the *public militia power* ..." (Ref. 32) "His own firearms are the second and better right hand of every freeman," held Coxe. (Ref. 33) The Founding Fathers strongly endorsed the right to bear arms for self-defense. They not only gave it written expression in the Second Amendment, but also personally exercised this right by possessing pistols and ot her firearms. No amounts of linguistic manipulation will ever obscure the plain and simple recognition in the Second Amendment of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." ------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTES 1. D. Kates, Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment, 82 UNIV. MICH. L. REV. 204, 267 (1984), Reprinted by Second Amendment Foundation Monograph Series 2. This author had prepared the Brief of Amicus Curiae Illinois State Rifle Association in Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, No. 82-1132, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. This brief solely concerned the intent of the framers of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. 3. Stengel v. Village of Morton Grove, Petition for Writ of Certioria, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 82-1834, at 8-9. 4. Brief of Americus Curiae HCI, In Opposition to Certioria, Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, No. 82-1822, at 8-9. 5. N. Webster, AN AMERICAN DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE (New York 1828) ("bear" -- definition 3) 6. Id. ("arms" -- definition 1). 7. Id. ("pistol"). 8. Id. ("people" -- definition 3). 9. N. Webster, AN EXAMINATION OF THE LEADING PRINCIPLES OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION 43 (Philadelphia 1787) 10. Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, 695 F.2d 261, 270n.8 (7th Cir. 1982), cert. denied 104 S. Ct. 194 (1983) 11. E.g., Ex Parte Baine, 121 U.S. 1, 12 (1887); Mallory v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1, 5 (1964) 12. L. Cress, An Armed Community, 71 JOUR. OF AM. HY. 22, 38 (June 1984). Cress was clearly unaware of the comprehensive evidence to the contrary presented in S. Halbrook, To Keep And Bear Their Private Arms: The Adoption of the Second Amendment, 1787-1791, 10 NO. KY. L. REV. 13-39 (1982) 13. L. Cress, supra note 12, at 29; D. Kates, supra note 1, at 244 n.169. 14. As the law student conceded, with these words "the phrase of the Second Amendment -- 'the right to ... bear arms' appeared." J. Smith, The Constitutional Right to Keep And Bear Arms 58 (Harvard Law School 1959). Smith's evidence elsewhere contradicts his argument. E.g., 12 Rich. 2, c.6 (1388) (no servant "shall from henceforth bear any buckler, sword, nor dagger, ... but in time of war"). Smith at 9. Since colonial militia service was required of males "capable of bearing arms," Smith (and Kates) illogically infer that the words "bear arms" only mean militia service. See Kates, supra note 1, at 267. 15. Bill for Preservation of Deer (1785), 2 Jefferson, PAPERS 443-44 (Boyd ed. 1951). 16. N. Webster, supra note 5 ("gun") 17. Act of 1772, 8 Hening, Statutes (Va.) 593. 18. A. Caso, AMERICA'S ITALIAN FOUNDING FATHERS 13 (1975). 19. G. Chinard ed., THE COMMONPLACE BOOK OF THOMAS JEFFERSON 4 (1926). 20. 1 Jefferson, PAPERS at 344. 21. 3 J. Adams, LEGAL PAPERS 242, 248 (1965) 22. 3 J. Adams, DIARY AND AUTOBIOGRAPHY 194 (1961) 23. 3 J. Adams, A DEFENSE OF THE CONSTITUTIONS OF GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 475 (London 1787-88) 24. 1 THE PAPERS OF JAMES IREDELL 79 (1976) 25. Caswell, Hooper, and Hewes, To the Committees, North Carolina Gazatte (Newburn), July 7, 1775, at 2, col. 3. 26. 1 J. Drayton, MEMOIRS OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 378 (Charleston 1821). 27. Ira Allen, Autobiography (1799) in J. Wilbur, IRA ALLEN: FOUNDER OF VERMONT 44 (Boston, 1928). 28. Id. at 40. 29. "A Pennsylvanian," Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments, Federal Gazatte, June 18, 1789, at 2, col. 1. 30. 12 Madison, PAPERS 257 (1979). 31. Coxe, To the Public, Democratic Press (Philadelphia), Feb. 2., 1811, at 2. 32. "Sidney," To the Friends of the Principles of the Constitution, Democratic Press, Jan. 23, 1823, at 2, col. 2. 33. "Sherman," To the People of the United States, apparently published in the Democratic Press or the Philadelphia Sentinel in early 1823, PAPERS OF TENCH COXE (microfilm) (Philadelphia: Historical Society of Pennsylvania, 1977), Reel 113, at 716. ********************************************************************** A discussion with Don Kates added by John Grossbohlin 2/22/92 For those who don't know, Stephen P. Halbrook is the top Constitutional authority at the NRA. I discussed his comments about Don Kates, Jr's. position with Don Kates on the Prodigy Computer network. The more recent works by Kates do not agree with what Halbrook stated and I was curious about this... As you will find, things have changed! HOMELIFE TOPIC: OUTDOOR HOBBIES TIME: 04/19 1:56 PM TO: DON KATES, JR. (CJSV80A) FROM: JOHN GROSSBOHLIN (JDJK54A) SUBJECT: GUN - REALITIES WHY? Don: I understand that you did some legal work on the Morton Grove gun ban case regarding the Constitutional issue of private gun ownership. At the time you argued that collective private gun ownership was protected under the Constitution. In later work I noticed that you argue from the perspective of private gun ownership being an individual's right. Since you have probably done more scholarly work on this issue than anyone, What key items lead to your adopting the "individual's right" position? Thanks for your tip on _Point_Blank_, the book review is John - 04/19 01:04 am ET HOMELIFE TOPIC: OUTDOOR HOBBIES TIME: 04/19 9:40 PM TO: JOHN GROSSBOHLIN (JDJK54A) FROM: DON KATES, JR. (CJSV80A) SUBJECT: GUN - REALITIES WHY? John: You've lost me here. I have NEVER argued that gun ownership is a "collective right." That position is conceptual gibberish, at least as anti-gunners argue it in that it "means" that the right to arms belongs to the people in the sense (actually non-sense) of a right which no one can invoke either in his own behalf or on behalf of all. That is not a right at all and has no analogue to anything in our Bill of Rights. There are, of course, collective rights in the Bill of Rights. For instance, the right to assemble is, obviously, a right that requires a multiplicity of people to exercise it. The right not to be subject to government discrimination because of race is another collective right in that it protects each race that may be discriminated against. But in each instance one individual is entitled to maintain suit to invalidate either race discrimination or denial of his (& others') right to assemble. Distinguish the collective right gibberish from the idea that the right to arms is a right of the states, not of the people. That is perfectly legitimate CONCEPTUALLY, it just isn't what the Bill of Rights was intended to accomplish. The 2nd Amendment speaks of a "right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms"-- a phrase used throughout the Bill of Rights always meaning individuals. In contrast, when the Bill of Rights means right of the states that is what it says -- and specifically distinguishes the rights of the people from the rights of the states (9th and 10th Amendments). See my discussion of the in 82 MICHIGAN LAW REV. 204 ff. and Prof. Amar's in 100 YALE L. J. at 1166 (The right "belongs to 'the people' not 'the states.'"). Don HOMELIFE TOPIC: OUTDOOR HOBBIES TIME: 04/20 5:43 PM TO: DON KATES, JR. (CJSV80A) FROM: JOHN GROSSBOHLIN (JDJK54A) SUBJECT: GUN - REALITIES WHY? Don: Thank you for clarifying the "collective" versus "individual" rights issue of the 2nd Amendment. I recently read an article that cites, "To Bear Arms for Self-Defense: our Second Amendment Heritage," by Stephen P. Halbrook, (1984). The article suggested you once supported the "collective" position, particularly as regards bearing arms: "...Yet the most startling source of this Orwellian Newspeak is Don B. Kates, Jr., author of numerous pro-gun articles. Kates recently has taken to arguing that the Second Amendment 'right of *the people* to ... bear arms' serves 'to guarantee the right to carry them outside the home only in the course of military service.' Before Professor Kates filed his brief asking the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn Morton Grove's handgun ban (the NRA filed a separate brief), this author and other scholars advised him that there was considerable evidence that the Founding Fathers intended the words 'bear arms' to mean carry them in general, not necessarily in a militia context. Kates, however, respectfully declined to change his argument that the right to keep arms is restricted to military service." As most of the folks on this board will attest to, I attempt to verify what I post and offer citations as part of my normal posting habits. The particular article I found the above information in is floating around on the BBS's. Since the article was untitled and had no author listed (but did have citations!), I was unable to verify the accuracy of the text as to completeness. Based on your reply here, you may have been taken out of context or your position otherwise distorted. Thanks for clearing it up. Does the above quote represent your position on "bearing arms" (as opposed to the ownership issue), or is this too a case of creative writing? Thanks for posting the references also. John - 04/20 01:54 am ET HOMELIFE TOPIC: OUTDOOR HOBBIES TIME: 04/21 3:12 PM TO: JOHN GROSSBOHLIN (JDJK54A) FROM: DON KATES, JR. (CJSV80A) SUBJECT: GUN - REALITIES WHY? John: Thanks for the explanation. It clears everything up. The problem arose from your use of "collective right" as a synonym for THE anti-2nd Amendment position whereas I assumed you had used it to denominate a particular (and particularly absurd) anti-2nd Amendment theory. Now understanding what you were actually referring to, I answer as follows: my first article on the 2nd Amendment is the one published in 82 MICHIGAN LAW REVIEW (1983). At the time it (and my subsequent short piece in the ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION) were written, I believed that, though the 2nd Amendment gave law-abiding, responsible adults a right to POSSESS arms, the word "bear" did not mean "carry" in the general sense, but only carry in the course of actual militia service. This was based on study of 17th and 18th Century American statutes. Steve Halbrook is the NRA's leading expert on the Amendment and an outstanding scholar, though I often disagree w/ him on what I would call his excessive interpretation of the Amendment (while he dismisses my more limited interpretations as "Orwellian Newspeak"). Steve showed me 18th Century evidence that convinced me that I was wrong on my limited interpretation of "bear." I have since repudiated it, though I still insist that the right to "bear" arms was always more subject to gov't. regulation than the right to own under the Anglo-American common law which is the antecedent referred to (and constitutionalized) by the 2nd Amendment ("the right to keep and bear arms"). For a debate between Steve and me about various limitations inherent in the 2nd Amendment, see 49 LAW AND CONTEMPORARY PROBLEMS # 1 (1986). Don HOMELIFE TOPIC: OUTDOOR HOBBIES TIME: 04/21 7:55 PM TO: DON KATES, JR. (CJSV80A) FROM: JOHN GROSSBOHLIN (JDJK54A) SUBJECT: GUN - REALITIES WHY? Don: Thank you for the valuable lesson... I should have been more careful with the term "collective!" As with any body of research literature, you have to know what the definitions are, or at least which definitions are being used. Your clarification of this item is much appreciated and I will definitely get the articles you cited on Wednesday. I look forward to reading the debate article... debates are often most enlightening because of the fine distinctions being made by both sides. Thanks again, your time is appreciated. John - 04/21 04:33 pm ET HOMELIFE TOPIC: OUTDOOR HOBBIES TIME: 04/21 7:55 PM TO: DON KATES, JR. (CJSV80A) FROM: JOHN MARSHALL (VFCM83A) SUBJECT: GUN - REALITIES WHY? Don, I have been following your talk with John Grossbohlin with great interest. I'm curious: What 18th Century evidence did Steve Halbrook show you which changed your mind as far as your previous limited interpretation of "bear" in the Second was concerned? Any references would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance. Regards, John Marshall HOMELIFE TOPIC: OUTDOOR HOBBIES TIME: 04/22 4:21 PM TO: JOHN MARSHALL (VFCM83A) FROM: DON KATES, JR. (CJSV80A) SUBJECT: GUN - REALITIES WHY? John: When the original Constitution was proposed, W/O A BILL OF RIGHTS, it encountered strong opposition throughout the country because it lacked a bill of rights. Among the pro- tests was one from some of the Pennsylvania ratifying con- vention members who called for a guarantee of the right of individuals to keep and bear arms, inter alia in hunting. Obviously, this use of "bear" is not consistent w/ the no- tion of the right to bear being limited to militia service. Steve Halbrook discusses this in his article in 49 LAW & CONTEMPORARY PROBLEMS # 1 (1986) -- and doubtless in his several books as well. My responsive article in LAW & CON- TEMPORARY PROBLEMS concedes that he is right, based on this evidence. Don ******* END of comments by Don Kates *********** ------------------------------------------------ (This file was found elsewhere on the Internet and uploaded to the Radio Free Michigan site by the archive maintainer. All files are ZIP archives for fast download. E-mail bj496@Cleveland.Freenet.Edu)