
Jun 15 10:15 EDT 1991

With a discussion with Don Kates added 2/22/92 by John Grossbohlin

There are two things going on here: the history of the 2nd Amendment
shows that the explicit wording concerning "militia" in the first part
is an "add-on" that merely compliments the RKBA portion. The 2nd
Amendment actually codifies common law practice of keeping and bearing
arms for the purpose of BOTH common defense and self-defense.

Indeed, some Court decisions DO recognize that handguns are implicitly
arms that are protected:

(1) State v. Kessler, 289 Or. 359, 614 P.2nd 94, at 95, at 98 (1980).

"We are not unmindful that there is current controversy over the
wisdom of a right to bear arms, and that the original motivations for
such a provision might not seem compelling if debated as a new issue.
Our task, however, in construing a constitutional provision is to
respect the principles given the status of constitutional guarantees
and limitations by the drafters; it is not to abandon these principles
when this fits the needs of the moment."

"Therefore, the term 'arms' as used by the drafters of the
constitution probably was intended to include those weapons used by
settlers for both personal and military defense. The term 'arms' was
not limited to firearms, but included several handcarried weapons used
for defense."

(2) State v. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222, at 224 (1921).

"We are of the opinion, however, that 'pistol' ex vi termini is
properly included within the word 'arms,' and that the right to bear
such arms cannot be infringed. The historical use of pistols as 'arms'
of offense and defense is beyond controversy."

"The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to
every free people and should not be whittled down by technical
construction."

(3) State v. Rosenthal, 75 VT. 295, 55 A. 610, at 611 (1903).

"The people of the state have a right to bear arms for the defense of
themselves and the state. *** The result is that Ordinance No. 10, so
far as it relates to the carrying of a pistol, is inconsistent with
and repugnant to the Constitution and the law of the state, and it is
therefore to that extent, void."

Indeed, the "War Department" distributed a manual during WWII that
recommended to citizens that they keep "weapons which a guerilla in
civilian clothes can carry without attracting attention. They must be
easily portable and easily concealed. First among these is the
pistol." (Bert Levy, Guerilla Warfare (New York: Penguin Books,
1942)), p. 55. Also, the US government supplied the single-shot .45
Liberator pistol to anti-Nazi partisans (cost: $1.75) for the explicit
purpose of killing soldiers to obtain their gear.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
This article appeared in the November 1984 American Rifleman. Mr.
Halbrook is author of "That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a
Constitutional Right," that is based on previously unknown material.
Holding a Ph.D., J.D., his book is the most comprehensive work to ever
appear on the Second Amendment.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

    To Bear Arms for Self-Defense: our Second Amendment Heritage

                      By Stephen P. Halbrook

More than any other freedom guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, the
Second Amendment "right of the people to keep and bear arms" has been
subjected by its enemies to Orwellian Newspeak. In George Orwell's
prophetic 1984, Big Brother was not content merely with prohibiting
possession of firearms by any of his subjects. Totalitarian rule also
required that words be rendered meaningless so that subversive
thoughts could be suppressed. Today, anti-gun advocates claim that
"the people" means the National Guard only, that to "bear" does not
mean carry, and that pistols are not "arms."

The emasculation of the Second Amendment through such linguistic
manipulation is being attempted by various groups. The National
Coalition to Ban Handguns (NCBH) has been prominent in supporting the
handgun ban in Morton Grove, Illinois. Plaintiff's lawyers who claim
handguns have no social utility are suing gun manufacturers whenever a
gun is used in crime. Yet the most startling source of this Orwellian
Newspeak is Don B. Kates, Jr., author of numerous pro-gun articles.
Kates recently has taken to arguing that the Second Amendment "right
of *the people* to ... bear arms" serves "to guarantee the right to
carry them outside the home only in the course of military service."
(Ref. 1)

Before Professor Kates filed his brief asking the U.S. Supreme Court
to overturn Morton Grove's handgun ban (the NRA filed a separate
brief), this author and other scholars advised him that there was
considerable evidence that the Founding Fathers intended the words
"bear arms" to mean carry them in general, not necessarily in a
militia context. (Ref. 2) Kates, however, respectfully declined to
change his argument that the right to keep arms is restricted to
military service. (Ref. 3)

Ironically, Kates' argument was identical to that of Handgun Control,
Inc. (HCI), which asked the Supreme Court *not* to hear the Morton
Grove case. Although the real issue in Morton Grove is whether the
Second Amendment protects the right to "keep" arms rather than to bear
them, as HCI argued: "The language of the second amendment suggests
that its purpose is limited to protecting organized and effective
state militias. The terms 'arms' and 'bear arms' have always been
associated with organized military activity." (Ref. 4) The chief
authority HCI cited for this proposition is Noah Webster's famous 1828
dictionary.

Anyone who looks up Webster's definition of "bear," as referenced in
HCI's brief, will be startled to find the very opposite of what HCI
claimed: "to wear; to bear as a mark of authority or distinction; as,
to *bear* a sword, a badge, a name; to *bear* arms in a coat." (Ref.
5) HCI also refers to the definition of "arms," which again fails to
support its claim: "weapons of offense, or armor for defense and
protection of the body." (Ref. 6)

Consistent with the meaning of "bear arms" as carrying or wearing
weapons on the person or inside one's clothing, Webster defines
"pistol" as "a small fire-arm, or the smallest fire-arm used....Small
pistols are carried in the pocket." (Ref. 7) As to who has the right
to bear arms, Webster defined "the people" as "the commonalty, as
distinct of men of rank." (Ref. 8)

Webster was certainly in a position to know what the Second Amendment
phrase "bear arms" meant. He was a prominent federalist who wrote the
first major pamphlet in support of the Constitution when it was
proposed in 1787. Indeed, Webster states: "Before a standing army can
rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every Kingdom
of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by
the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed...." (Ref.
9)

When the Morton Grove case was still before the federal Court of
Appeals, unassailable evidence was presented that the respective
framers of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments intended that the
individual right to keep arms, including pistols, was protected from
infringement by the federal, state and local governments.The clear
intent of the framers, however, was disregarded by the Court. In its
opinion upholding the Morton Grove gun ban, the Court of Appeals held
the framers' intent to be "irrelevant." (Ref. 10) By contrast, the
U.S. Supreme Court has declared again and again that the
Constitution's provisions must be interpreted according to the intent
of the framers. (Ref. 11)

Did the Framers intend the Second Amendment to protect a right to
carry guns for self-protection? Texas A&M Professor Lawrence Cress
thinks not. His mistaken belief that "we know little about the Second
Amendment's reception in the States" has led him to argue that the
Founding Fathers would have been shocked by the idea that citizens
could bear firearms for self-defense. (Ref. 12) Kates bases his
similar argument that there is no right to bear arms outside of
militia service on an unpublished thesis of a law s tudent. Yet Cress,
Kates, et al are well aware (Ref. 13) that the first state Declaration
of Rights to use the term "bear arms" was that of Pennsylvania in
1776: "That the people have a right to bear arm *in defense of
themselves* and the State." (Ref. 14)

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Italian philosopher Beccaria influenced Founding Father John Adams as
he did Thomas Jefferson. Adams gave his copy of the 1775 English
translation of the Beccaria essay *On Crimes and Punishments* to his
son Thomas B. Adams in 1800. (Photo)

Discovered by this author, this manuscript shows Jefferson copied
portions of Beccaria's essay in Italian. (Photo)

                        Translation

False is the idea of utility (False ideas of utility) that sacrifices
a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling
inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and
water because one may drown in it; there has no remedy for evils,
except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws
of such a nature. They disarm those only who are neither inclined nor
determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have
the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most
important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary
ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if
strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty -- so dear to
men, so dear to the enlightened legislator -- and subject innocent
persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer?
Such laws only make things worse for the assaulted and better for the
assailant; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides,
for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an
armed man. They ought to designated as laws not preventative but
fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few
isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the
inconveniences and advantage of a universal decree.

------------------------------------------------------------------- It
is remarkable that the above translation describes the anti-gunners
position even today. The more things change, the more they remain the
same! -- dw
-------------------------------------------------------------------

That to "bear" arms simply meant to carry them is clear in a game bill
drafted by Thomas Jefferson and proposed by James Madison (draftsman
of the Second Amendment) in the Virginia legislature. That bill would
have fined one who hunted deer out of season, and if within a year "he
should bear a gun out of his inclosed ground, unless whilst performing
military duty," he shall be in violation of his recognizance. The game
violator would have to go back to court for "every such bearing of a
gun" to be bound to his good behavior. (Ref. 15)

To "bear" a gun thus meant to carry it about one's hands or one's
person, as for instance a deer hunter might do. "Bearing arms" is not
militia duty only, for the above addresses the "bearing of a gun" by
"any person" when *not* "performing military duty." Further, while the
game bill would have restricted the carrying of scatterguns and other
long guns for hunting, it would not have prohibited carrying pistols
for self-defense. At that time, "one species of fire-arms, the pistol,
is never called a gun." (Ref. 16)

Previous game legislation had imposed a penalty of 20 lashes on a
violator's back (Ref. 17), so that the above was intended to make the
law more humane. Jefferson strongly relied on the penal reform
theories of Cesare Beccaria, whose *Essay on Crime and Punishments*
(1764) was partly responsible for the Eighth Amendment's prohibition
on cruel and unusual punishment. "In America of the revolutionary
period, the little book was more influential than any other single
book, its spirit incorporated in documents such as ... the Bill of
Rights." (Ref. 18) Beccaria's influence on the Second Amendment only
recently came to light.

Jefferson kept a Common Place Book where he copied his favorite
passages from legal writers, such as Beccaria, in the months before
drafting the Declaration of Independence. The Common Place Book "may
well be considered as the source-book and repertory of Jefferson's
ideas on government." (Ref. 19) Among the passages Jefferson copied
was Beccaria's denunciation of laws against the bearing of arms.
Beccaria undoubtedly had pistols in mind when he referred to laws
which forbid "di portar le armi" -- "the carrying of arms" or, in the
1776 edition, "to wear arms." These laws made things worse for crime
victims and better for their assailants. Since they punished victims
rather than criminals, those laws were relics of a barbaric past which
progress would sweep away along with the rack and screw.

The wisdom of Beccaria was a source of Jefferson's proposed Virginia
Constitution of 1776 which provided: "No freeman shall ever be
debarred the use of arms." (Ref. 20) The Italian philosopher also
influenced John Adams. Adams began his final opening statement in the
Boston Massacre trial in 1770 with a quote from Beccaria, and in the
course of his speech added that "the inhabitants had a right to arm
themselves at that time, for their defence...." (Ref. 21) Adam's own
views against disarming the people were consistent with the following
favorite passage from Beccaria which he copied in his diary: "Every
Act of Authority, of one Man over another for which there is not an
absolute Necessity, is tyrannical." (Ref. 22) Elsewhere, Adams upheld
the right of "arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual
discretion,.... in private self-defense...." (Ref. 23)

Bearing arms for personal protection was an unquestioned rights in the
minds of the Founding Fathers, as the following passages reveal.

Before the Revolution, James Iredell, who would be prominent in the
Constitution ratification struggle and later a Justice on the U.S.
Supreme Court, wrote his mother:

Be not afraid of the Pistols you have sent me. They may be necessary
Implements of self Defense tho' I dare say I shall never have Occasion
to use them .... It is a Satisfaction to have the means of Security at
hand if we are in no danger, as I never expect to be. Confide in my
prudence and self-regard for the proper use of them, and you need have
no Apprehension. (Ref. 24)

In 1775, North Carolina's delegation to the Continental Congress, all
of whose members would become prominent state or federal leaders,
resolved: "It is the Right of every *English* Subject to be prepared
with Weapons for his Defense." (Ref. 25) William Henry Drayton, a
prominent Revolutionary leader and Chief Justice of the South Carolina
Supreme Court, according to his son, "Always had about his person, a
dirk and a pair of pocket pistols; for defense of his life..." (Ref.
26)

In Vermont, Ethan Allen and his friends "never walked out without at
least a case of pistols." (Ref. 27) Lodging with a Quaker on one
occasion, Ethan's brother Ira recalled:

We took our pistols out of our holsters and carried them in with us.
He looked at the pistols saying 'What doth thee do with these things?'
He was answered, 'Nothing amongst our friends,' but we were Green
Mountain Boys, and meant to protect our persons and property...."
(Ref. 28)

Just 10 days after James Madison proposed the Bill of Rights to
Congress in 1789, Tench Coxe wrote what became the Second Amendment
confirmed the people "in their right to keep and bear their private
arms." (Ref. 29) James Madison endorsed the widely published article
in which these words appear. (Ref. 30) In later years, Coxe referred
to muskets, rifles, and pistols as "arms," (Ref. 31) and to "the right
to  own and keep and use arms and consequently of *self-defense* and of
the *public militia power* ..." (Ref. 32) "His own firearms are the
second and better right hand of every freeman," held Coxe. (Ref. 33)

The Founding Fathers strongly endorsed the right to bear arms for
self-defense. They not only  gave it written expression in the Second
Amendment, but also personally exercised this right by possessing
pistols and ot her firearms. No amounts of linguistic manipulation
will ever obscure the plain and simple recognition in the Second
Amendment of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
-------------------------------------------------------------------
                                NOTES

1. D. Kates, Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the
   Second Amendment, 82 UNIV. MICH. L. REV. 204, 267 (1984),
   Reprinted by Second Amendment Foundation Monograph Series

2. This author had prepared the Brief of Amicus Curiae Illinois
   State Rifle Association in Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove,
   No. 82-1132, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. This brief
   solely concerned the intent of the framers of the Second and
   Fourteenth Amendments.

3. Stengel v. Village of Morton Grove, Petition for Writ of
   Certioria, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 82-1834, at 8-9.

4. Brief of Americus Curiae HCI, In Opposition to Certioria,
   Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, No. 82-1822, at 8-9.

5. N. Webster, AN AMERICAN DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE (New
   York 1828) ("bear" -- definition 3)

6. Id. ("arms" -- definition 1).

7. Id. ("pistol").

8. Id. ("people" -- definition 3).

9. N. Webster, AN EXAMINATION OF THE LEADING PRINCIPLES OF THE
   FEDERAL CONSTITUTION 43 (Philadelphia 1787)

10. Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, 695 F.2d 261, 270n.8 (7th
    Cir. 1982), cert. denied 104 S. Ct. 194 (1983)

11. E.g., Ex Parte Baine, 121 U.S. 1, 12 (1887); Mallory v. Hogan,
    378 U.S. 1, 5 (1964)

12. L. Cress, An Armed Community, 71 JOUR. OF AM. HY. 22, 38 (June
   1984). Cress was clearly unaware of the comprehensive evidence
   to the contrary presented in S. Halbrook, To Keep And Bear
   Their Private Arms: The Adoption of the Second Amendment,
   1787-1791, 10 NO. KY. L. REV. 13-39 (1982)

13. L. Cress, supra note 12, at 29; D. Kates, supra note 1, at 244
    n.169.

14. As the law student conceded, with these words "the phrase of
    the Second Amendment -- 'the right to ... bear arms' appeared."
    J. Smith, The Constitutional Right to Keep And Bear Arms 58
    (Harvard Law School 1959). Smith's evidence elsewhere
    contradicts his argument. E.g., 12 Rich. 2, c.6 (1388) (no
    servant "shall from henceforth bear any buckler, sword, nor
    dagger, ... but in time of war"). Smith at 9. Since colonial
    militia service was required of males "capable of bearing
    arms," Smith (and Kates) illogically infer that the words "bear
    arms" only mean militia service. See Kates, supra note 1, at
    267.

15. Bill for Preservation of Deer (1785), 2 Jefferson, PAPERS
    443-44 (Boyd ed. 1951).

16. N. Webster, supra note 5 ("gun")

17. Act of 1772, 8 Hening, Statutes (Va.) 593.

18. A. Caso, AMERICA'S ITALIAN FOUNDING FATHERS 13 (1975).

19. G. Chinard ed., THE COMMONPLACE BOOK OF THOMAS JEFFERSON 4
    (1926).

20. 1 Jefferson, PAPERS at 344.

21. 3 J. Adams, LEGAL PAPERS 242, 248 (1965)

22. 3 J. Adams, DIARY AND AUTOBIOGRAPHY 194 (1961)

23. 3 J. Adams, A DEFENSE OF THE CONSTITUTIONS OF GOVERNMENT OF THE
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 475 (London 1787-88)

24. 1 THE PAPERS OF JAMES IREDELL 79 (1976)

25. Caswell, Hooper, and Hewes, To the Committees, North Carolina
    Gazatte (Newburn), July 7, 1775, at 2, col. 3.

26. 1 J. Drayton, MEMOIRS OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 378
    (Charleston 1821).

27. Ira Allen, Autobiography (1799) in J. Wilbur, IRA ALLEN:
    FOUNDER OF VERMONT 44 (Boston, 1928).

28. Id. at 40.

29. "A Pennsylvanian," Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments,
    Federal Gazatte, June 18, 1789, at 2, col. 1.

30. 12 Madison, PAPERS 257 (1979).

31. Coxe, To the Public, Democratic Press (Philadelphia), Feb. 2.,
    1811, at 2.

32. "Sidney," To the Friends of the Principles of the Constitution,
     Democratic Press, Jan. 23, 1823, at 2, col. 2.

33. "Sherman," To the People of the United States, apparently
     published in the Democratic Press or the Philadelphia Sentinel in
     early 1823, PAPERS OF TENCH COXE (microfilm) (Philadelphia:
     Historical Society of Pennsylvania, 1977), Reel 113, at 716.

**********************************************************************
A discussion with Don Kates added by John Grossbohlin 2/22/92

For those who don't know, Stephen P. Halbrook is the top
Constitutional authority at the NRA. I discussed his comments about
Don Kates, Jr's. position with Don Kates on the Prodigy Computer
network. The more recent works by Kates do not agree with what
Halbrook stated and I was curious about this... As you will find,
things have changed!


         HOMELIFE TOPIC: OUTDOOR HOBBIES TIME: 04/19 1:56 PM

TO: DON KATES, JR. (CJSV80A) FROM: JOHN GROSSBOHLIN (JDJK54A) SUBJECT:
GUN - REALITIES WHY?

Don:

I understand that you did some legal work on the Morton Grove gun ban
case regarding the Constitutional issue of private gun ownership. At
the time you argued that collective private gun ownership was
protected under the Constitution. In later work I noticed that you
argue from the perspective of private gun ownership being an
individual's right. Since you have probably done more scholarly work
on this issue than anyone, What key items lead to your adopting the
"individual's right" position? Thanks for your tip on _Point_Blank_,
the book review is

       John - 04/19 01:04 am ET


         HOMELIFE TOPIC: OUTDOOR HOBBIES TIME: 04/19 9:40 PM

TO: JOHN GROSSBOHLIN (JDJK54A) FROM: DON KATES, JR. (CJSV80A) SUBJECT:
GUN - REALITIES WHY?

John:

You've lost me here. I have NEVER argued that gun ownership is a
"collective right." That position is conceptual gibberish, at least as
anti-gunners argue it in that it "means" that the right to arms
belongs to the people in the sense (actually non-sense) of a right
which no one can invoke either in his own behalf or on behalf of all.
That is not a right at all and has no analogue to anything in our Bill
of Rights. There are, of course, collective rights in the Bill of
Rights. For instance, the right to assemble is, obviously, a right
that requires a multiplicity of people to exercise it. The right not
to be subject to government discrimination because of race is another
collective right in that it protects each race that may be
discriminated against. But in each instance one individual is entitled
to maintain suit to invalidate either race discrimination or denial of
his (& others') right to assemble.

Distinguish the collective right gibberish from the idea that the
right to arms is a right of the states, not of the people. That is
perfectly legitimate CONCEPTUALLY, it just isn't what the Bill of
Rights was intended to accomplish. The 2nd Amendment speaks of a
"right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms"-- a phrase used throughout
the Bill of Rights always meaning individuals. In contrast, when the
Bill of Rights means right of the states that is what it says -- and
specifically distinguishes the rights of the people from the rights of
the states (9th and 10th Amendments). See my discussion of the in 82
MICHIGAN LAW REV. 204 ff. and Prof. Amar's in 100 YALE L. J. at 1166
(The right "belongs to 'the people' not 'the states.'").

                   Don


         HOMELIFE TOPIC: OUTDOOR HOBBIES TIME: 04/20 5:43 PM

TO: DON KATES, JR. (CJSV80A) FROM: JOHN GROSSBOHLIN (JDJK54A) SUBJECT:
GUN - REALITIES WHY?

Don:

Thank you for clarifying the "collective" versus "individual" rights
issue of the 2nd Amendment. I recently read an article that cites, "To
Bear Arms for Self-Defense: our Second Amendment Heritage," by Stephen
P. Halbrook, (1984). The article suggested you once supported the

"collective" position, particularly as regards bearing arms: "...Yet
the most startling source of this Orwellian Newspeak is Don B. Kates,
Jr., author of numerous pro-gun articles. Kates recently has taken to
arguing that the Second Amendment 'right of *the people* to ... bear
arms' serves 'to guarantee the right to carry them outside the home
only in the course of military service.'

Before Professor Kates filed his brief asking the U.S. Supreme Court
to overturn Morton Grove's handgun ban (the NRA filed a separate
brief), this author and other scholars advised him that there was
considerable evidence that the Founding Fathers intended the words
'bear arms' to mean carry them in general, not necessarily in a
militia context. Kates, however, respectfully declined to change his
argument that the right to keep arms is restricted to military
service."

As most of the folks on this board will attest to, I attempt to verify
what I post and offer citations as part of my normal posting habits.
The particular article I found the above information in is floating
around on the BBS's. Since the article was untitled and had no author
listed (but did have citations!), I was unable to verify the accuracy
of the text as to completeness.

Based on your reply here, you may have been taken out of context or
your position otherwise distorted. Thanks for clearing it up. Does the
above quote represent your position on "bearing arms" (as opposed to
the ownership issue), or is this too a case of creative writing?

Thanks for posting the references also.

                    John - 04/20 01:54 am ET


         HOMELIFE TOPIC: OUTDOOR HOBBIES TIME: 04/21 3:12 PM

TO: JOHN GROSSBOHLIN (JDJK54A) FROM: DON KATES, JR. (CJSV80A) SUBJECT:
GUN - REALITIES WHY?

John:

Thanks for the explanation. It clears everything up. The problem arose
from your use of "collective right" as a synonym for THE anti-2nd
Amendment position whereas I assumed you had used it to denominate a
particular (and particularly absurd) anti-2nd Amendment theory. Now
understanding what you were actually referring to, I answer as
follows: my first article on the 2nd Amendment is the one published in
82 MICHIGAN LAW REVIEW (1983). At the time it (and my subsequent short
piece in the ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION) were written,
I believed that, though the 2nd Amendment gave law-abiding,
responsible adults a right to POSSESS arms, the word "bear" did not
mean "carry" in the general sense, but only carry in the course of
actual militia service. This was based on study of 17th and 18th
Century American statutes. Steve Halbrook is the NRA's leading expert
on the Amendment and an outstanding scholar, though I often disagree
w/ him on what I would call his excessive interpretation of the
Amendment (while he dismisses my more limited interpretations as
"Orwellian Newspeak"). Steve showed me 18th Century evidence that
convinced me that I was wrong on my limited interpretation of "bear."
I have since repudiated it, though I still insist that the right to
"bear" arms was always more subject to gov't. regulation than the
right to own under the Anglo-American common law which is the
antecedent referred to (and constitutionalized) by the 2nd Amendment
("the right to keep and bear arms"). For a debate between Steve and me
about various limitations inherent in the 2nd Amendment, see 49 LAW
AND CONTEMPORARY PROBLEMS # 1 (1986).

                                         Don


         HOMELIFE TOPIC: OUTDOOR HOBBIES TIME: 04/21 7:55 PM

TO: DON KATES, JR. (CJSV80A) FROM: JOHN GROSSBOHLIN (JDJK54A) SUBJECT:
GUN - REALITIES WHY?

Don:

Thank you for the valuable lesson... I should have been more careful
with the term "collective!" As with any body of research literature,
you have to know what the definitions are, or at least which
definitions are being used. Your clarification of this item is much
appreciated and I will definitely get the articles you cited on
Wednesday.

I look forward to reading the debate article... debates are often most
enlightening because of the fine distinctions being made by both
sides.

Thanks again, your time is appreciated.

               John - 04/21 04:33 pm ET

         HOMELIFE TOPIC: OUTDOOR HOBBIES TIME: 04/21 7:55 PM

TO: DON KATES, JR. (CJSV80A) FROM: JOHN MARSHALL (VFCM83A) SUBJECT:
GUN - REALITIES WHY?

Don,

I have been following your talk with John Grossbohlin with great
interest. I'm curious: What 18th Century evidence did Steve Halbrook
show you which changed your mind as far as your previous limited
interpretation of "bear" in the Second was concerned? Any references
would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.

Regards, John Marshall


         HOMELIFE TOPIC: OUTDOOR HOBBIES TIME: 04/22 4:21 PM

TO: JOHN MARSHALL (VFCM83A) FROM: DON KATES, JR. (CJSV80A) SUBJECT:
GUN - REALITIES WHY?

John:

When the original Constitution was proposed, W/O A BILL OF RIGHTS, it
encountered strong opposition throughout the country because it lacked
a bill of rights. Among the pro- tests was one from some of the
Pennsylvania ratifying con- vention members who called for a guarantee
of the right of individuals to keep and bear arms, inter alia in
hunting. Obviously, this use of "bear" is not consistent w/ the no-
tion of the right to bear being limited to militia service. Steve
Halbrook discusses this in his article in 49 LAW & CONTEMPORARY
PROBLEMS # 1 (1986) -- and doubtless in his several books as well. My
responsive article in LAW & CON- TEMPORARY PROBLEMS concedes that he
is right, based on this evidence.

                     Don


******* END of comments by Don Kates ***********
------------------------------------------------
(This file was found elsewhere on the Internet and uploaded to the
Patriot FTP site by S.P.I.R.A.L., the Society for the Protection of Individual Rights and Liberties. E-mail alex@spiral.org)
