LETTERS: A CLOSER LOOK AT COURT'S GUN RULING

To the editor:

This is in response to the anonymous Speak Out caller of Dec. 8, "It's up to the court." This person make an undocumented reference to a Supreme Court decision of 60 years ago that is supposed to refute my original position of individual protection under the Second Amendment. I was unaware that in liberal America it was necessary to have a seat on the Supreme Court in order to have an opinion. And let us not forget that no Supreme Court decision is cast in stone. At various times in our history the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of slavery, separate but equal education and denying women their basic rights. Fortunately, we can revisit rulings of the court through open debate. Otherwise, a large segment of our population would still be living in situations of far less than full citizenship.

The Supreme Court decision referenced by the caller would have to be United States v. Miller in 1939 in which a Mr. Miller had been arrested and convicted for possession of a sawed-off shotgun in violation of the 1934 National Firearms Act. This Supreme Court ruling did reverse a district court that invalidated the 1934 NFA as a violation of the Second Amendment. However, before the caller and other liberals rejoice, a little background on the case and a reading of the opinion written by Justice McReynolds is in order.

It is important to know that Mr. Miller, representing himself in this case, failed to appear at the Supreme Court hearing. During my research, I have found two different explanations for Miller's failure to appear. However, what is important is that this was a time before every special-interest group in the country got involved with filing briefs on one side of the other of a case. As a result, only the government's side of the case was presented to the Supreme Court. This is crucial in understanding the opinion rendered by the court.

The salient part of the 1939 Miller opinion written by Justice McReynolds follows: "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a `shotgun having a barrel length of less than 18 inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation of efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense." In other words, had evidence been presented as to the usefulness of short-barreled shotguns in a military situation, the opinion of the court may well have been different. And short-barreled shotguns have been used in every military engagement of this century and many engagements before, and today they can be found in the armories of most combat units.

Or one could go further back to United States v. Cruikshank in 1870: "The right there specified is that of bearing arms for a lawful purpose. This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment declares that it shall not be infringed."

I would like to thank the caller for bringing this subject up. I had not delved into this area in my first letter, because I thought it not germane to the topic at hand. If you examine McReynolds' opinion, I don't see how anyone could come to any conclusion other than the Supreme Court did uphold the individual right to possess military-type firearms. Only the lack of presented evidence pertaining to the military application of sawed-off shotguns allowed the original conviction to stand as well as the reinstating of the 1934 NFA. So this ruling is like the Seattle-New York football game the other night -- an obviously bad call, but it stands.

In this light, I will concede that if the federal government wants to ban the 54-caliber caplock muzzle-loading rifle that I use for deer hunting, I have no protection under the Second Amendment, according to the Miller decision. However, when it comes to the AK47-style rifles, AR15s, FNFALs, M1A1s and so forth that are owned by millions of law-abiding citizens, these are clearly part of "the ordinary military equipment" and can "contribute to the common defense." Under the Miller decision, they are without a doubt protected by the Second Amendment. This is exactly the opposite conclusion the caller and other liberals would like for you to draw from only the most casual look at the Miller case.

When the caller and other liberals cite the Miller ruling, they look no further than the surface of this one ruling allowing the restriction of certain firearms. This is the only Supreme Court ruling on the Second Amendment in this century. And the court has been acting like championship dodgeball players to avoid taking another Second Amendment case.

ROBERT A. CRON

Cape Girardeau