Columnist refutes claim of arms bearers’ is limited to the National Guard

• Tweet
• 

Not to call Mike Phillips a liar, but why then in his columns does he claim
to be an National Rifle Association life member when he does not support their
supposedly biased interpretation of the Second Amendment? This for some reason
does not make sense. Every thesis he argues is in complete contradiction to
the views of the NRA.
Mike Phillips also cites many court cases, which he claims do not protect the
individual right to arms, only the National Guard’s right to keep and bear.
How pray tell can this be, when the National Guard is prohibited by United
States Code Title 32, sec. 105 (a) (1) from keeping their own military arms?
Furthermore, USC Title 10 sec. 311 delineates the difference between the National
Guard and the armed citizenry by using the terms organized and unorganized militias!
Clearly Phillips is taking the courts’ readings grossly out of context.
He asserts that according to 1939 U.S. vs. Miller, the ruling defined the right
to keep and bear only to the National Guard. How can that make sense if the
case was about Miller’s illegal transportation of a sawed-off shotgun?
Justice McReynolds emphasized that such weapons are of no relationship to preserving
a militia. Miller was not in the militia so how could that be relevant to him,
if the militia as Phillips says, is the National Guard?
McReynolds continued, “The sentiment of the time (that the amendment was
drafted) strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate
defense of the country and laws could be secured through the militia –
civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.” He also noted, “the debates
in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the
writings of approved commentators (s)how plainly enough that the militia comprised
all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.”
This is the part that Phillips wants to ignore. Why would McReynolds have said
“comprised all males,” instead of “was comprised of,” as
Phillips would like us to believe.
Clearly McReynolds is saying that the militia IS all males, not IS DRAWN FROM
all males. This is even more clear, considering McReynolds’ separation
of “civilians” and “soldiers,” as one cannot be both at
the same time.
Mike Phillips asserts that the founding fathers, including the drafter of the
Constitution, James Madison, did not intend an individual right to arms. Even
if that were true, then the organized state militias would have to support the
sovereignty of their Constitutions, most of them like Michigan’s, declaring
a concise individual right: “Every person has a right to keep and bear
arms for the defense of himself and the state.” Note, “EVERY PERSON…”
let’s read what the founders actually said about the individual right.

• Jefferson says, “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
• Richard Henry Lee speaks of a division between the people and organized
  militia: “A militia when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves,
  and render regular troops in great measure unnecessary. The powers to form
  and arm the militia, to appoint their officers, and to command their services
  are very important; nor ought they in a confederated republic to be lodged,
  solely, in any one member of the government. First the Constitution ought
  to secure a genuine… …and guard against a select militia… …and
  that all regulations tending to render this general militia useless and defenseless,
  by establishing select corps of militia, or distinct bodies of military men,
  not having permanent interests and attachments in the community is to be avoided.
  …to preserve liberty, it is essential that they whole body of the people
  always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use
  the…” (Emphases added).
  This is very concise in meaning.
• Madison himself adds, “To the (army) would be opposed a militia amounting
  to nearly half a million citizens with arms in their hands, offered by men
  chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties…”

These sentiments are echoed verbatim throughout the press and other commentary
of the time that I have read.
Now I ask, why would the Second Amendment refer to a collective right anyway,
when every other part of the Constitution refers to people’s rights, especially
the First, Fourth, Seventh, Ninth and Tenth Amendments? Why would the Second
be the only part of the people’s rights that didn’t refer to the people
at large? If such were the case, then why would Madison, precise legal draftsman
that he was, have included right to arms in with the other rights of the people
and not following Article 1, Section 8, where the Constitution authorizes Congress
to call out the militia when needed?
Unless you read the full texts of the law, in proper context, you will fall
into the same traps that Mike Phillips fell into.
One more thing – “well-regulated.” According to Michigan Supreme
Court Chief Justice (1824) Thomas M. Cooley, this means “…the learning
to handle and use them (arms) in a way that makes those who keep them ready
for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary
discipline in arms.”
So to close I say, “BECAUSE a well-regulated militia IS necessary to the
security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall
not be infringed!”
Adam Barrett is a Livonia sophomore and may be contact at barre1ap@cmich.edu.