Opinion : Letter to the Editor: Response

Response to Darrin Lindsey -

Sure . . . let's get our "facts" in order. First, I never said that a militia was defined in the Constitution. Its meaning was simply understood. Britain had a tradition of militias dating back to the 1100s. They knew, in a very real way, that the individual, the family, the community were responsible for their own defense. This extended to the colonies as they were formed and grew, and the ownership of firearms was expected. Here are a couple of examples for the "Revolutionary War Journal" . . .

"In 1623, the Virginia General Assembly decreed, "that men go not to work in the ground without their arms" and Governor William Berkeley said in 1661 that, "all our freemen are bound to be trained every month in their particular counties." Immediately after the Massachusetts Bay Colony received its charter in 1628, Captain John Endecott, the appointed governor of the "plantation" at Naumkeag (Salem), was ordered to undertake the military organization of the trading post and settlement. At his orders, a shipment was sent over in 1629 that included 100 uniforms, 60 corselets (upper torso body armor), 100 swords, 83 polearms, 100 firearms and 8 cannon."

In fact, you can also refer to Article VI of the Iowa Constitution.

ARTICLE VI. - Militia

Composition-training. Section 1. The militia of this State shall be composed of all able-bodied [white]* male citizens, between the ages of eighteen and forty-five years, except such as are or may hereafter be exempted by the laws of the United States, or of this State, and shall be armed, equipped, and trained, as the General Assembly may provide by law.

We, as a people, have a long and clear definition of the idea of a militia and its purpose. And, at the time, the ownership of a firearm was necessary for individual defense and community defense not to mention simply putting food on the table. And as can be seen in the case of Virginia, firearm ownership has been demanded of able-bodied men.

As to our form of government, the Iowa Republican Party, as the first element of their platform's preamble has a definition I particularly like.

I. Our nation is a Constitutional Republic whose Foundation is the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. We acknowledge our rights derive from God, our Creator, and are therefore unalienable and include Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness (e.g. private property). Further, the Right to Life shall be understood to include all people from conception to natural death. We are a nation governed by people elected to public office that are sent to represent us, the citizens. Our Constitution provides limits to governmental power, explicitly details our fundamental rights and ensures that only the enumerated powers contained within the Constitution are executed by the federal government. All other functions of government are left to the state and local governments.

There simply is no "famous" case entitled Keller vs District of Columbia. This gets back to the whole - get your facts in order issue.

The IS a case entitled HELLER vs District of Columbia that DID NOT give the citizens of DC the right to keep and own guns - it did remind DC that the Constitution clearly states that an individual has the right do keep and bear arms and that it is NOT dependent upon membership in a militia. It found DC's complete ban on handguns and their requirement that shotguns and rifles be unloaded, disassembled and "locked" was illegal.

Scalia's response set limits from the POV that individual citizens have the obligation to behave within the civilized norms of society. Should they use a firearm for murder, robbery, intimidation and a host of other ways that are clearly outside the norms of society - their rights could be limited. But there had to be actual, clearly defined acts. Not, as was the case in DC, whereas a preventative measure - guns were taken away under the theory that this would reduce crime. When Beto takes positions like . . . "Hell yes, we're comin' for your ARs and AKs!!!" . . . that clearly outside his Constitutional rights.

When I was growing up and was taught history, "inalienable rights" were those granted by God. We as a nation understood in our soul that there was, indeed, a "higher power" and we were all answerable to that power. Our founders had lived under and experienced national leadership that, literally, believed they WERE a god in their ability to rule. It is not that these rights can't be taken away, it is that they cannot, in any way, be questioned because mere men can not grant them at all. That was the root of my comment of the Supervisor's resolution being "beyond their paygrade". My right to defend my life, my family's lives, my nation and my very existence is simply "beyond the

paygrade" of any city, county, state or national government - period. You may well choose to be subordinate to them - it is a free country. I am not.

As for the Judicial system defining our national legal rights - they have done little to garner confidence, especially the Supreme Court. It has always been a political tool wielded by the ruling party. Let's look at but a few of their more egregious rulings.

Dred Scott v. Sanford - In 1857 the Court held that the United States Constitution was not meant to include American citizenship for people of African descent, regardless of whether they were enslaved or free, and so the rights and privileges that the Constitution confers upon American citizens could not apply to them. This was one of the ingredients that set the table for the Civil War.

The Civil Rights Act of 1875 - The Civil Rights Act of 1875 gave African Americans equal treatment in public accommodations, and the Supreme Court decision that it was unconstitutional specifically stated that Congress was not afforded control over private persons or corporations. It took them until 1964 when they corrected this decision and found the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to be Constitutional.

While it's clear that there is real value in the use of the Supreme Court to guide our nation, it is not the infallible entity that many seem to think it is. This again gets back to the clear language of the Constitution that allows the individual citizen to understand what their rights are and what the limits of their government are.

The bottom line on gun rights - again, it is up to the person you see in the mirror. Provided that you, as a citizen, live within the norms of the society, that you do not use your arms to murder, rob or intimidate others - the government has no right to simply say . . . "Hell yes, we're comin' for your ARs and your AKs." They have no right to ban any firearm larger than a .22 and with a removable magazine. They have no right to ban magazines larger than a specific size as California and New York have discovered. Now, you - the person in the mirror - can bend to their wishes. But understand that once you bend and bow, you cannot go back.

The government can assume they have such power. Remember, I grew up in the era where the words - "Step to the back of the bus, boy!" held real power. Where "Negro Water fountain" and "Negro Restroom" had real power. I was also in the middle of Detroit on July 23, 1967, at the Tigers - NY Yankees doubleheader when our nation came apart. Detroit burned. Cities across the nation burned. And our nation changed - for the better, and for the worse.

Acts like banning firearms will, in my opinion, yield a similar result. It's beyond the federal government's paygrade to ban firearms. Focusing on individual behavior - arresting criminals that use firearms, keeping them in jail, focusing on gangs that have a fondness for firearms, enforcing the laws on the books today - this will reduce gun violence - and not gun bans.

Bill Keller