This article was printed from KeepAndBearArms.com.
For more gun- and freedom-related information, visit
http://www.KeepAndBearArms.com.
----------------------------------------------------------------
|
Dianne Feinsteins' Latest
Incredible Lie by Merrill Gibson July 30, 2001 click to enlarge Dianne Feinstein on July 10th
wrote a letter to Secretary of State Colin Powell, complaining about Attorney
General John Ashcroft's position on the Second Amendment and how the State
Department had used his stance to help formulate the US position at the latest
UN small arms conference. The letter was heavily publicized by Feinstein, the
basic idea of the letter being that Ashcroft was an ignorant running dog of the
NRA. In the letter, Feinstein quoted the Miller
Supreme Court decision. I have read this decision, and didn't recognize an
important phrase that Feinstein said was in the decision. It made a substantial
change in the meaning of the decision, compared to what I remembered, in a way
that made it seem that Miller supported a favorite talking point of Feinstein
and her fellow fascists. I thought to myself "Now, there's NO WAY Dianne
Feinstein would misquote a Supreme Court decision, in a highly publicized letter
to an important government official. It's so easy to check. It would be so
embarrassing to her if someone found out. Did I forget something about
Miller?" So I to looked up Miller and read the section Feinstein
"quoted" again. Feinstein HAD changed the wording of the Miller
decision, put quotation marks around it as if she was quoting exactly, and even
put in old style capitalization to make her fabrication seem authentic. Details
follow. I'm quoting (exactly - I'm just copying and
pasting) the paragraph of Feinstein's letter to Powell: "In rejecting a motion to dismiss the
case on Second Amendment grounds, the Court held that the 'obvious purpose' of
the Second Amendment was 'to assure the continuation and render possible the
effectiveness' of the 'state Militia.' Because a sawed-off shotgun was not a
weapon that would be used by a 'state Militia' (like the National Guard), the
Second Amendment was in no way applicable to that case, said the Court." Here's what Miller really says (again I'm just
cutting and pasting): "The Constitution as originally adopted
granted to the Congress power--'To provide for calling forth the Militia to
execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To
provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for
governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United
States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers,
and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline
prescribed by Congress.' With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and
render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee
of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with
that end in view." No mention of "state Militia". Or
"state militia" either. In fact, NOWHERE in the entire Miller decision
is the phrase "state Militia" or "state militia" mentioned.
And the "state Militia" (like the National Guard) that Feinstein
falsely inserted are NOT the "forces" referred to by the REAL Miller
language. State militia which are like the National Guard are part of the
organized militia. The organized militia is a very different entity than the
Militia referred to by the constitutional language that the Miller decision
quotes (they are just one component of the Militia.) Militia refers to all men
in the country capable of bearing arms. The organized militia are units of part
time professional soldiers (indeed like the present day National Guard.)
Militia, organized militia, and unorganized militia are all different things,
and they are all well defined in 10 U.S.C. 311(a)-(c). The reason that this is significant is that
Feinstein et. al. want you to believe that the Second Amendment just says that
the states can keep their own militias, it doesn't have anything to do with
individual rights. The falsified language that Feinstein invented and inserted
into her quote makes it sound like Miller supports her claim of what the Second
Amendment means. So I guess I was wrong that Feinstein wouldn't
dare do this, or that someone would expose it if she did. As far as I know,
nobody has mentioned her lie. In this message, I don't have time to discuss
several important issues related to Miller that don't relate to the Feinstein
lie. For instance, why the Miller decision strongly supports the individual
right interpretation of the Second, or why the Miller decision is wrong when it
says that the Second's only purpose is to render possible an effective Militia.
See me sometime at a meeting if you're interested. If you want to see the whole Feinstein letter
to Powell, email me and I'll email it to you (it's too long to insert here.) If you want to read the entire Miller decision,
go to http://www.2ndlawlib.org/court/fed/sc/307us174.html
(HTML) or http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/miller.txt
Related Reading |
||||||||||||
