Indiana Freepers! Email from Evan Bayh: Re-upping the AWB.

Email | 02/24/04 | Senator Evan Bayh

[Jhoffa_]

Dear Mr. (My Name):

Thank you for your letter concerning the reauthorization of the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994. I welcome your thoughts and comments.

The primary purpose of any gun control legislation must be to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals or juveniles. Throughout my public life, I have opposed legislation that fails to appropriately balance the need to maintain a safe society with the ability of law-abiding Americans to own and use firearms responsibly. I have always supported the second amendment and have opposed efforts to impose burdensome regulations on gun-owners. I believe that tough and effective enforcement of existing firearms laws is the best way to save lives.

As you may know, the Assault Weapons Ban passed as part of the 1994 Crime Bill. This legislation prohibited the manufacture, transfer or possession of 19 specifically named assault weapons, all semi-automatic rifles and pistols that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least two features outlined by the statute, and all large- feeding ammunition devices. The Assault Weapons Ban will expire after September 14, 2004 unless Congress and the President approve the reauthorization of the law before this date.

While I was not a member of the Congress when this ban was passed, I do plan to support the reauthorization of the Assault Weapons Ban. In a post September 11th world, we simply cannot increase the difficulties faced by our law enforcement community in keeping our nation safe by allowing assault weapons to land in the hands of violent criminals or would-be terrorists. However, I would be reluctant to support efforts that would expand the scope of this legislation or undermine the right of law-abiding citizens to bear arms.

Thank you for taking the time to advise me on this important matter. I value your input and hope that you will continue to share your thoughts with me.

Again, thank you for contacting me. I hope that the information that I have provided is helpful. My website, http://bayh.senate.gov, can provide additional details about legislation and state projects, and you can also sign up to receive my monthly e-newsletter, The Bayh Bulletin, by clicking on the link at the top of my homepage. I value your input and hope you will continue to keep me informed of the issues important to you.

Best wishes,

Evan Bayh United States Senator

EB/jdd

Sincerely,

Evan Bayh

[DMZFrank]

The AWB is directly about the RKBA.

Gun grabbers are increasingly trying to separate the right to keep and bear arms from its constitutional underpinnings. To everyone but many liberals and gun grabbers the word militia implies a body organized for military use. The Supreme Court Miller decision of 1939 held that the militia was 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

To begin with, only the national government was represented at the trial. With nobody arguing to the contrary, the court followed standard court procedure and assumed that the law was constitutional until proven otherwise. If both sides were present, the outcome may have been much different.

However, since only one party showed up, the case will stand in the court records as is. As to the militia, Mr. Justice McReynolds related the beliefs of the Founding Fathers when commenting historically about the Second Amendment. He stated that, ". . .The common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the militia- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

"The significance attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.

It is clear that the firearms that are most suited for modern-day militia use are those semi automatic military pattern weapons that the yellow press calls "assault weapons". Since nations such as the Swiss trust their citizenry with true selective fire assault rifles, it seems to me that this country ought to be at least able to trust its law-abiding citizenry with the semi automatic version.

Self-defense is a vital corollary benefit of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. But its primary constitutional reason for being is for service in the well-regulated militia which is necessary to the security of a free state. Don't let the gun grabbers and their politician allies separate us from the constitutional reason for the right to keep and bear arms.

PostScript: In the vernacular of the founders well-regulated meant well drilled and organized.

[in the Arena]

Thanks for the link archy...as usual, you're a wealth of information.