Gun Control

One of the many issues President Clinton must confront with immediacy for the benefit of the nation is gun control.

For benefit of the nation does not mean just to combat crime, the effect of gun control on crime is not quantifiable. And gun control opponents use that argument as a smokescreen to dilute efforts, to bring about approval of necessary legislation.

For benefit of the nation means much more. It means to reduce violence and, to alter the mind-set prevailing throughout American society that violence and use of guns are acceptable behavior.

Success in bringing about gun control will establish a new norm. It will set a tone of caring for one another instead of damaging one another. Gun control will set, in motion the Changes in American society so ardently desired by the Clinton-Gore Administration, as described during the presidential election campaign, in the blue-print for the administration (Putting People First), and in the inaugural address to the nation on January 20th, "our plan (is) to...fight for what Americans deserve, good jobs, world-class education, quality health care, and safe streets and neighborhoods."

In their chapter on gun control in Putting People First, Clinton arid Gore acknowledge the necessity for legislation; and they support the Brady Bill. This should be re-assuring to the American people, who, according to the polls, favor gun control. But re-assurance is diluted by the flawed Clinton-Gore approach. On page 105 of the Clinton-Gore blueprint for their administration, they say,

... we know that the Constitution guarantees an individual's basic right to keep and bear arms, and we will uphold that right."

Therein lies the flaw that probably will guarantee failure of their effort to bring guns under control.

Americans revere their Constitution, and the effect of that provision provokes sympathy for or at least toleration of the contention of the National Rifle Association that all individuals have a right to keep and bear arms.

Unfortunately for the future prospects of gun control legislation, the Clinton-Gore position is the same as that of the NRA, except that the NRA is a powerful and wealthy lobby intent on destroying any effort to bring about gun control while Clinton and Gore support the Brady Bill, Thus the ground swell of opinion needed to sway Congress has little or no chance of arising, in particular because the NRA has purchased the integrity of too many senators and representatives.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution states that:

"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

In order to protect its obstinate opposition to gun control, the NRA, as well as hunters in general and hunters such as Clinton and Gore, choose to misinterpret the Second Amendment.

A close look at the wording arrangement of the amendment shows quite clearly that it gives first priority to "the security of a free state" and second priority, to "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." Moreover, that right is linked directly to the necessity of "a well-regulated militia" which is linked directly to "the security of a free state." The clear meaning of the Second Amendment is that the only individuals having a right "to keep and bear arms" are members of "a well-regulated militia."

A militia isn't just any self-constituted group. The NRA, for example, is not a militia.

A militia is defined as "a body of citizens enrolled as a regular military force." In other words, formation of a militia is initiated and controlled by government. Law in the United States designates as militia the Air Force Reserve, National Guard, Army National Guard, Marine Corp Reserve, and Naval Reserve.

The NRA-Clinton-Gore misinterpretation of the Second Amendment becomes clearer in the light of a bit of history. At the time the amendment was proposed and crafted, the 13 colonies were extremely sensitive about their security. They required their citizens to enroll and train in their militia. They insisted, therefor, that the new U.S. Constitution embody a similar requirement. Ipso facto the Second Amendment. In addition, a provision was placed in the Constitution giving Congress the right to call up the militia "to execute the laws of the Union." This provision further establishes the fact of the governmental nature and control of militia.

Acceptance of the true meaning of the Second Amendment is crucial to any effort to bring into being legislation to control guns.

The biggest hurdle may not be the NRA per se. It may be the Congress due to the NRA's influence. A proper interpretation of the Second Amendment would deprive the NRA of some of that influence and act as a spur to Congress.

President Clinton and Vice President Gore are in an exemplary position to overcome the too-long accepted interpretation of the Second Amendment, which is the real barrier to gun control legislation. By removing the barrier they could assure passage of legislation and begin to move the nation toward fuller realization of the policy goals they have devised for changing America.

...Robert Sturgill...

Radio Frequencies for Sale

Continuing the Privatization of the Public Domain

Bill Clinton, like Carter, Reagan, and Bush before him, wants to sell the nation's air waves—the broadcast spectrum—which is part of the public domain and constitutes the common wealth of the citizens sovereign. An equal share of the commonwealth is an unalienable right. The proposed sale would take the form of an auction and would raise $7 billion dollars over a five year period, that's $1.4 billion per year. Once sold the money from the auctions would fall in to the maw of the deficit and disappear from view forever. By Washington's standards $1.4 billion is less than .01% of the Federal budget, but as Senator Dirksen once said, "A billion here and a billion there and it soon adds up to real money." The sale is bad from the fiscal point of view because it is a trifle in terms of the debt and in addition it is an extremely bad precedent to set with respect to the fiduciary responsibility the United States, particularly the Congress, has to the citizens sovereign with regard to the common wealth. The public domain is a rich and fruitful domain that should be dedicated to the common betterment of the citizens of the United States. To privatize the public domain, as in the instance of the broadcast spectrum is simply to enrich a few already wealthy businessmen at the expense of the nation as a whole. This is an abandonment of the public trust and a miscarriage of the fiduciary responsibility. This has been the philosophy of any number of our recent presidents because they wanted, to get the government off the backs of the people, and is so doing deprive the citizens sovereign of their assets and the service of government. Clinton in proposing to sell the capital assets of the citizens sovereign is liquidating a capital asset to solve a short term problem. We will move from deficit spending to balanced budgets, we will reduce the public debt, but once the radio frequencies are gone they are gone forever.

Why not lease the radio frequencies? We lease grazing lands. Why not auction the lease of the radio frequency, like oil leases are auctioned and then collect a royalty on the profits of the use of the radio frequency whether its for telephones or broadcasting? The same procedures could be used to license the use of the commercial radio and TV broadcast channels. There is no reason why commercial broadcasting should be done without compensating the United States for the use of the public airways.

President Clinton is selling the citizens sovereign short by liquidating their birthright—the unalienable right to an equal share of the common wealth, when he sells the capital assests that belong to all of us to pay the debts of spendthrift, redeemer presidents who refused to levy taxes to pay for government.

He does himself and the nation a disservice by extending their reckless policy.

The income from the public domain is not tax money. It is money that belongs to the citizens sovereign. It is money that should be invested in public trust funds such as the American Heritage Trust. Investing the income from the public domain converts non-renewable resources to renewable ones, and the income from the trust should be spent for the common benefit of he people of the United States—the citizens sovereign.

...Ted Sudia...

© Copyright 1993
Institute for domestic Tranquility