Posted on 10/17/2003 10:29:17 AM PDT by FourPeas
Militia member 'filled with rage,' plotted ambush Friday, October 17, 2003 By Ed White
It was a rural arsenal fit for war. After the peaceful arrest of a Cadillac-area man, authorities who searched his 40-acre compound discovered a stunning collection of firepower, including an anti-aircraft gun capable of firing 550 rounds per minute up to four miles away. A van and a Jeep Cherokee, described by the suspect as his "war wagons," had machine guns inside, with one "locked, loaded and ready to go," Assistant U.S. Attorney Lloyd Meyer said. Agents found an underground bunker, thousands of rounds of ammunition, hundreds of pounds of gunpowder and manuals on guerrilla warfare, "booby traps" and explosives. There were chilling pictures of President Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld with the cross-hairs of a high- see MILITIA, A4 powered rifle scope drawn over them, Meyer said. Norman Somerville, 43, was arrested last week on federal gun and drug charges as he shopped at Home Depot in Cadillac. Authorities then spent the weekend combing his property in Wexford County's Antioch Township, about 20 miles northwest of Cadillac. Details of the search were disclosed in a court document filed Thursday in federal court in Grand Rapids, four days before a judge will decide whether Somerville should remain in jail while his case is pending. Somerville was "filled with rage and intended to ambush people, mowing them down in a hail of machine-gun bullets," Meyer said, quoting informants. He belongs to a "self-styled radical militia unit" whose members are upset over the death of Scott Woodring, the prosecutor said. Woodring was the Newaygo County man fatally shot by state police during the summer, days after a trooper died while trying to serve him with an arrest warrant. State police were told in September that Somerville wanted to cause a car accident, then "ambush and kill" any responding officers with a machine gun mounted in his Jeep, Meyer wrote in the court document. An unidentified source, described as one of Somerville's "trusted associates," feared he had become "mentally unbalanced and would kill an innocent person or be killed," Meyer said. Somerville may face additional charges linked to the search of his property, although Meyer declined to elaborate. Two years ago, Somerville moved to Wexford County from elsewhere in northern Michigan. He served in the Army from 1978 to 1984 and was trained as an intelligence analyst assigned to the elite Special Forces. During a brief court appearance last week in Grand Rapids, Somerville said: "The people will have their day. ... There's a quiet civil war going on in the country." In Antioch Township, five miles outside Mesick, neighbors said he is not the type to share a cup of sugar. "We told our kids to stay off his property. There was gunfire a lot," said Lynda Sherburne, a former township clerk who lives nearby. "Who knows where the stray bullets are going. "He got angry very easily. No contact with him was the best contact." Sherburne said her nephew's house shook as state and federal authorities detonated explosives found on Somerville's property. "I don't think anyone realized he was stockpiling back there," she said.
The Grand Rapids Press
If all that were shown were cross hairs, how do they know they were on rifle scope, let alone one mounted on a high-powered rifle?
Last I looked, even convicted criminals were still citizens, let alone mere "suspects", or persons charged with crimes.
Or the often somewhat heftier cannon designed for shipboard use. The Colonial Navy wasn't much, but we had lots of privateers, which were privately owned ships, outfitted for commerce raiding and such.
I agree with a previous poster. This sounds like a left-wing militia group.
The statement could better have been written as: "But authorities say Somerville crossed the line between responsible citizen and irresponsible criminal when he ..."
Here is the militia clause of the Constitution
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.
As you can see the Congress is only to *provide for* the organziation, arming, and disciplining of the militia. The states dod the training, and most importantly the appointment of officers. Both Congress and the States have fallen down on the job. This gives them the power to do something, but does mandate that they do it. A grevious oversite on the part of the founders?
In any event, being an *amendment* the Second Amendment takes precidence over the main body of the original Constitution, if there is a conflict. I don't think there is in this case. You'll notice too that neither the Congress nor the States are given the power to *create* the militia. It exists independent of both.
You could secret one near the keel of your "innocent fishing boat", and set it off in the middle, or even near the edge, of an enemy invasion fleet, some miles out to sea. Kinda far fetched, but so is getting your hands on one in the first place.
Besides, neither utility nor even practicality affect the right. The founders probably didn't envision nukes, but they are still "arms" and thus keeping and bearing them is protected. If you don't want people possessing them, and you think it's a problem, it behooves you to get the second amendment amended with an exception for nukes, or WMDs, but be sure you define what you mean, or the gun grabbers will define anything other than a .22 single shot break action as a WMD. Of course those who would harm others with nukes won't turn theirs in after the amendment is passed and laws banning possesion of them are passed. Same problem as with regular gun laws.
The Grand Rapids Press had the following side bar along with this article:
Summary of allegations against Norman David Sumerville in a document filed Thursday by federal prosecutors in U.S. District Court in Grand Rapids.
Possessed illegal machine guns, marijuana.
Fortified 40-acre compound with anti-aircraft weapon, explosives, improvised land mines.
Plotted to cause automobile accident, attack police with a machine gun mounted on Jeep.
Had outbuilding with metal lathe, tools for modifying firearms. Ordered kits for manufacturing machine guns.
Dug underground bunker dubbed "the laboratory" for firing machine guns without neighbors hearing.
Had tens of thousands of rounds of ammunition.
That would ban everything, save maybe paintball guns and stun guns. There is always risk to bystanders when bullets and such start flying. The average deer rifle, well maybe not 30-30s, will penetrate clean through your neighbor down the block's house, should you use it to defend your life and property, and miss.
I don't see any exception in the second amendment for "dangerous arms" or "hazardous arms". Even a Brown Bess musket was a pretty nasty thing, and inaccurate as all get out, so misses, with the attending risk to bystanders, were almost guaranteed. Of course the colonials, especially colonial militia, were more likely to have rifles than were the Redcoats. In fact early exercise of Congress' power to provide for arming the militia allowed the more western regions' militias to provide them selves with rifles, while the more settled areas' militias were to provide themselves with muskets, of a uniform caliber. Even then Congress did not actually provide arms to the militia, but only provided the requirements for how they should arm themselves in regards to militia service.
It can be amended you know. The original authors were not Gods, and they knew that, so they provided a process of amendment to provide for things they had not anticipated. So amend it, don't violate it.
But it wasn't, and as written it was wrong.
Let me rephrase that: When you can't employ said force in self-defense or the defense of others without an extremely high likelihood (i.e., >99%) of violating many (as in thousands and beyond) others' rights to the quiet enjoyment of their liberty and property, that's where the 2nd Amendment ends.
Implied in the right to keep and bear arms is the right to USE those arms. That you have to go to such preposterous lengths to create scenarios where said use might be marginally justifiable illustrates the magnitude of the problem.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.