Front Sight, Press

Former Military Brass Join Fight to Give D.C. Its Guns

Here’s a new argument against the D.C. gun ban, now before the Supreme Court: If people can’t own guns, then how are they supposed to train for the militia or military provided for in the Second Amendment? That’s the new pitch from a prominent hunters group backed by several former top Army generals who today filed a brief with the Supreme Court supporting the bid to overturn the gun ban in the nation’s capital.

The American Hunters and Shooters Association said in its amicus brief that the ban not only violates the Second Amendment’s right to gun ownership but flies in the face of the amendment’s provision allowing localities to form a “well regulated militia.” Ray Schoenke, the association’s president and a former Washington Redskins player, said, “A well-regulated militia depends on recruits who have familiarity and training with firearms.” For example, he added, it violates the Home Rule Act because it challenges the congressionally mandated Civilian Marksmanship Program, which prepares citizens for more effective service in the military… Source

Am I the only one to whom it sounds a wee bit odd that American Hunters and Shooters Association, an astroturf gun control organization, is suddenly a champion of the militia? My, my, we have come a long way. Have you noticed that suddenly all of the gun grabbers are pontificating about the militia as if they had attended the Boston Massacre?

The reason is pretty clear: the gun grabbers want to contend that the Second Amendment only applies to “the people” in a collective sense, i.e., that states can organize armed militias and regulate them, but outside of the state regulated militia context “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” does not really extend to individual citizens.

At the core of Judge Silberman’s opinion in the Parker v. D.C. decision is the question of the nature of the militia, and the relationship between individual arms and militia participation. What is really stunning to me about the court’s decision is the thoughtful consideration given to the idea of the militia and its relationship to individual members of the society. It is clear that this court did not consider the idea of the militia to be an irrelevant anachronism, nor does it consider the militia to be limited to the federalized National Guard. And most importantly, it sees the Second Amendment as protecting the right of citizens to keep and bear arms irrespective of organized militia participation.

“The crucial point is that the existence of the militia preceded its organization by Congress, and it preceded the implementation of Congress’s organizing plan by the states. The District’s definition of the militia is just too narrow. The militia was a large segment of the population—not quite synonymous with “the people,” as appellants contend—but certainly not the organized “divisions, brigades, regiments, battalions, and companies” mentioned in the second Militia Act.” — Parker V. District Of Columbia. pp. 32-33

That’s where the gun grabbers want to muddy the water. They contend that unless you are enrolled in a state-chartered militia, you have no right to privately own a firearm. I’m sure that AHSA is seriously concerned about raising a citizen militia out of Washington D.C. Maybe they’re expecting another invasion from the redcoats? AHSA has shown its true colors as a gun control group right alongside the Brady Campaign and VPC.