President Clinton v. The NRA v. ABC News
Nothing illustrates the bankruptcy of the political culture more than the triumvirate of opposing absurdities on ABC's "This Week" on March 12th. The triumvirate rules by excluding what is really at stake. Cowardice is part of the job description of politicians. Political leadership has to be forced on them and there is no constituency now to force political leadership on the fundamentals of law and government. There is nothing in the discussion below that would build that constituency. The function of the news media is to keep public discourse very narrowly confined so that an enlightened citizenry capable of taking charge of its political destiny does not emerge. Although no one could replace the Washington Post as the extreme example of dereliction, ABC News is quite diligent. There is no mention in this discussion of US v. Emerson. There is no inquiry into what the NRA will do if the Fifth Circuit decides that there is no constitutional right for the NRA's "armed populace at large" fantasy. Nor is there mention of Handgun Control, the Violence Policy Center or the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, the lead gun control organizations.
NPR's Diane Rehm is another consistent and persistent dereliction. Seecomments on program, April 12, 2000
The gun lobby has nothing to fear in this discussion for its only political objective: to keep gun ownership outside of accountability to public authority so it can maintain a balance of power between a privately armed populace and any and all government. Part of the strategy is the make sure gun laws are difficult or impossible to enforce so it can proclaim gun laws do not work. It achieved credibility for the assertion in this Sunday morning exchange. A recent Handgun report has documented the efforts to sabotage gun laws and their enforcement. See Handgun Control, Inc., Press Release, March 21, 2000, NRA Hypocrisy Exposed, "The Enforcement Fable."
Sam Donaldson insists he reads his mail. He might start with a disclaimer about his own competence. (.../news.html) George Will received a letter dated February 11, 1991, describing what is really at stake in gun ownership and gun violence. We can expect that he would deny receiving it or having read it, but six weeks later in this column, "America's Crisis of Gun Fire," March 21, 1991, some of the references showed up. He quoted out of context the ubiquitous words from Federalist Paper No. 46 and arrived at the simple-minded recommendation that the Second Amendment should be repealed. He made the same recommendation on David Brinkley's program, December 15, 1991. He was surrounded by Sam Donaldson, Hodding Carter, and Brinkley. All four demonstrated their complete ignorance of the Bill of Rights and how it works. This is the quality of public discourse. George Will has a PhD in political science (Princeton, 1968). Apparently the difference between citizenship under law and government and individual sovereignty, a law unto oneself, in the State of Nature, which is the state of anarchy, was not part of the course of study. Will's column was included in Appedix I of the Potomac Institute's amicus curiae brief in US v. Emerson as an illustration of the quality of public discourse. Is there any wonder that blood runs in the streets? But then George Will is a creature of the NRA's most obedient servant, the Washington Post.
The gun lobby has invented a whole doctrine of political liberty largely out of that one paragraph in Federalist Paper No. 46. The words in context do not support the claim. They were brought to the attention of ABC News' Michel McQueen (not a part of this discussion) at a forum in March, 1997. (portion of transcript at .../news.html.) She remarked that the news media cannot be concerned with every person's (read, every eccentric crackpot's) "particular truth." This is what we have come to. The fraud is now in federal court seeking certification.
Just as the NRA refers to the Washington Post as the "rabidly antigun Washington Post," Wayne LaPierre builds the NRA's demagogic appeal on the "dishonesty that this man is capable of." The Washington Post and President Clinton are the best friends the NRA has. The NRA should show some gratitude that neither will bring up what James Madison was really describing in Federalist Paper No. 46 and make an issue of what is the real agenda of people who have to be blatantly dishonest to make their case. Federalist Paper No. 46 must be too much to handle. The NRA cannot win what it wants in court but not for the want of trying. It has to rely on demagoguery and fraud. We can hope the US Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, will provide some enlightenment.
All of the NRA's posturing has the sole objective of keeping gun ownership outside of accountability to public authority so it can have its armed populace fantasy. Stephen Halbrook, the premier insurrectionist theorist, argued for the "armed populace at large" fantasy before the Supreme Court in the NRA's amicus brief in Perpich. It was a nice try by the Supreme Court ignored the assertion. Accountability to public authority means registration of ownership. Registration is the only mechanism by which gun ownership can be effectively regulated. Registration does not mean that an authoritarian absolutist state confiscates all the guns and oppresses a disarmed populace. It means that the exercise of force is authorized or permitted by the state which means by law. Appendix H. It does not mean that we surrender our guns at the door when we enter political community and become citizens. It does mean we put our guns on the table, subject them to laws and the rule of law, and make them available to the political community to be called out to enforce the laws. See amicus brief. In the present political cynicism Charlton Heston is on national television equating accountability to public authority ("licensing") to confiscation. The rule of law becomes tyranny. Mothers Against Drunk Driving should have campaigned against automobile registration and licensing at the same time that they worked to enforce the laws against the drunks. All of us motorists missed the chance to be really free.
What is at stake in gun ownership and gun violence is the most fundamental issues of law, government and citizenship. It is the relationship between citizen and state. It is not about trigger locks, gun shows, public health statistics, and smart guns. But this is the substance of the false progun/antigun impasse of the "two sides" in the transcripts below. The Emerson case and the coming election season are opportunities to breaking out of the impasse and raise the subject on its proper terms. So far there has not been much progress in that direction.
The proper terms start with two points:
1) The Second Amendmend was not about the personal rights of private individuals. It was about military organization. This is crystal clear from the historical record, the militia laws and the early militia court cases
2) The Constitution of the United States is a frame of government with "just powers" that derive from the "consent of the governed" not a treaty among sovereign individuals who give no more than word of honor and promise of good faith. To bring this out, a few simple questions can be put to holders and seekers of public office: Are gun owners citizens under law and government or are they individual sovereigns, laws unto themselves, in the State of Nature? See amicus brief. While they are at it, they might explain what their oath of office obligates them to with regard to maintaining the internal sovereignty of the United States against the NRA's "armed citizen guerrillas" who would "outflank" it or maintain the fantasy of outflanking it. See amicus.