 |
| Colin Goddard addressing the Million Mom March marchers at EWEB Plaza. |
On a snowy, windy April day in Blacksburg, Virginia, young Americans pursued
a college education and their teachers engaged in providing it to them. Colin was among them, in a French class in Norris Hall at Virginia Tech. Earlier that morning, two people had been shot to death in a dormitory. The shooter was at large. Unfortunately, for most of the campus it was still business as usual. Two hours later, while Colin and his classmates were doing their job as students, the shooter came to Norris Hall, chained the doors, and proceeded to open fire, going room to room and systematically shooting to death as many students and professors as he could. His name was Seung-Hui Cho.
In the next 10 minutes were seen the best and worst of humanity: a murderous killer on a rampage, and professors and students risking their lives to barricade doors and protect each other and help each other escape. The situation ended when the shooter took his own life. In the end, he had killed 32 people plus himself and wounded 17 others.
Colin Goddard was one of those wounded. As explained in the documentary on the shooting that features him, "Living for 32," he was the first one to call 911, was shot four times, and survived the horror. He still has three bullets in him, as well as a titanium rod in his leg. He was 21 at the time.
 |
| Colin talks to attendees after the Bijou showing. |
Cho had been adjudicated mentally ill and a danger to himself and others, but because of Virginia's weak reporting of mental health records to the NICS background check system at the time, he was still able to purchase his handguns and ammo from a gun shop and pass the background check.
After recovering and finishing his degree at Virginia Tech, Colin has since joined the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. He is touring the nation, showing the documentary and speaking at venues, mostly universities, Sundance and other film festivals, and now even public high schools.
"Living for 32" is a powerful and thought-provoking documentary about Goddard and his efforts to bring awareness to the issue of gun violence in America. In the film, he examines his change in thought about guns in America as he recovered from his wounds, discusses what it is like to be a survivor, and goes undercover to gun shows to demonstrate how anyone, including felons and the mentally ill, can purchase a gun without even showing ID.
When I heard that Colin was travelling the nation, I immediately sought to bring him to Oregon. You may have noticed I didn't post anything during the month of April. This was because I was using all of my available time scheduling a tour of Oregon for Colin. I'm proud to say that I and a team of other volunteers from Ceasefire Oregon Education Foundation and Million Mom March had a slew of venues for Colin to speak at.
 |
| Colin (tallest guy) and other marchers listening to Mayor Kitty Piercy at the Million Mom March. |
In five day's time Colin spoke at ten different appearances and radio interviews. All showings were free to the public.
On May 5, Colin arrived in Eugene and immediately went to a live radio interview with KLCC, an NPR affiliate, and the "Northwest Passage" show with Tripp Summer. Listen to it HERE.
 |
| Marching to reduce gun violence with Million Mom March. |
On May 6, Colin spoke with three classes at South Eugene High School, showing clips of the documentary and discussing the issue of gun violence with around 138 kids and teachers. A few hours later, he visited Thurston High School in Springfield, site of the 1998 shooting by 15-year old Kip Kinkle, Colin spoke with around 300 kids. He made a tremendous impression at both schools, and the schools are eager to have him back. That night, Colin made his way to Portland and the film to a small audience at Multnomah Friends Meeting.
On May 7, Colin met with another small group at Augustana Lutheran Church in Portland, an institution known for advocating for peace and non-violence. Then he made his way south again to a small showing at Oregon State University in Corvallis. A reporter from the university newspaper, the Daily Barometer, was there and wrote up an article.
On Mother's Day, Sunday, May 8, came the annual Million Mom March in downtown Eugene. With around 100 marchers watching, Colin spoke to the crowd and to TV and newspaper reporters, along with Mayor Kitty Piercy (who is a member of Mayors Against Illegal Guns), myself, a boy named Sage from the iMatter group, and a close friend of Officer Kilcullen, who had recently been slain by a mentally ill shooter. A moment of silence was observed for Officer Kilcullen, and then we all marched a couple miles along the Willamette River. All three major TV news programs covered the event (see HERE and HERE) as well as the newspaper, the Register-Guard (HERE).
 |
| Colin addresses the Bijou Art Cinemas attendees. |
On his last day here, May 9, Colin didn't stop to rest. At noon he spoke with a class of about 190 students at the University of Oregon. That evening, he had a very long and excellent interview with the U. of O. radio station, KWVA, which I think is the best I've heard with him. Listen to it HERE. Finally, he wrapped up his tour with a showing of the documentary and discussion at the Bijou Art Cinemas, with around 104 showing up.
In all, Colin spoke directly with an estimated 877 people in five days, not counting radio and TV interviews!
And what is the main message of all of this? We need stronger background checks that are better at excluding the mentally ill and those who are criminals, for ALL gun sales, including at gun shows and for private sales, in all states and at all times.
I can't say enough how immensely proud I am of Colin Goddard and the way he has turned his personal trauma into a vehicle for change. He is brave for taking on a difficult subject, and his efforts will almost certainly play a major role in making a new trajectory for our nation.
Keep up the great work, Colin, and I look forward to your next visit to Oregon!
"I think I've actually found a way to turn the negative experience in my life into something positive, something that will hopefully bring change."
-- Colin Goddard, from the KLCC radio interview
(all photos courtesy of Jasmine Rose Penter, photographer and Ceasefire Oregon volunteer)
It sounds like a great week of inspiring people to join in efforts to stem the tide of gun violence. Good work. Colin is a great young man.
ReplyDeleteLet's see, it's been over 30 years since Jim Brady was shot in the attempt on President Ronald Reagan's life.
ReplyDeleteInstead of seeing firearms laws strengthened, they are being eviscerated. The justification for this is the Second Amendment, which has been subjected to serious revisionism and false history.
Justice William O. Douglas was a member of the US Supreme Court at the Time of US v. Miller (but did not take part in the oral argument). He said:
A powerful lobby dins into the ears of our citizenry that these gun purchases are constitutional rights protected by the Second Amendment, which reads, "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."
There is under our decisions no reason why stiff state laws governing the purchase and possession of pistols may not be enacted. There is no reason why pistols may not be barred from anyone with a police record. There is no reason why a State may not require a purchaser of a pistol to pass a psychiatric test. There is no reason why all pistols should not be barred to everyone except the police.
The leading case is United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, upholding a federal law making criminal the shipment in interstate commerce of a sawed-off shotgun. The law was upheld, there being no evidence that a sawed-off shotgun had "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." Id., at 178. The Second Amendment, it was held, "must be interpreted and applied" with the view of maintaining a "militia."
"The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia - civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion." Id., at 178-179.
Critics say that proposals like this water down the Second Amendment. Our decisions belie that argument, for the Second Amendment, as noted, was designed to keep alive the militia. But if watering-down is the mood of the day, I would prefer to water down the Second rather than the Fourth Amendment. Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S 143, 150 -51 (1972)
The Seocnd And Third Amendments were added to the US Constitution to protect against the establishment of a Standing Army. Unless someone is arguing for a reinstitution of a Swiss Style military, the Second Amendment is a dead letter.
"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [ I Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789}])
I wish Colin the best of luck and thank him for his efforts.
Thanks, Laci, for your characteristically thorough knowledge of the constitution on this issue.
ReplyDeleteHmm,
ReplyDeleteLet's do a little deconstruction:
A powerful lobby dins into the ears of our citizenry that these gun purchases are constitutional rights protected by the Second Amendment, which reads, "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."
If not the 2nd Amendment, what about the 9th Amendment then?
Does any Anti-Rights Cultist remember that one?
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Of course, Miller is rendered obsolete by the rulings in Heller and McDonald. But let's not confuse Laci-- a lawyer, with the facts, eh.
There is under our decisions no reason why stiff state laws governing the purchase and possession of pistols may not be enacted.
Well beside the various state constitutions protecting the right to keep and bear arms?
Maybe the fact that McDonald incorporated the 2nd Amendment to the local and state governments. Again, isn't it telling that Laci references a decades old ruling where no defense was presented?
The law was upheld, there being no evidence that a sawed-off shotgun had "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." Id., at 178. The Second Amendment, it was held, "must be interpreted and applied" with the view of maintaining a "militia."
See above -- no defense was presented or the court might have heard that 'trench brooms' were used in WWI as military/militia weapons.
So -- since we are discussing Miller; let me ask a question.
Given that basis - if a firearm has no reasonable relationship, etc -- does that mean ONLY military weapons are protected by the 2nd Amendment under the Miller Decision?
There fore, bans on fully automatic weapons, grenade launchers and squad level weapons - bunker busters, anti-tank, etc -- are unconstitutional?
Remember the Miller decision stated the Possession without a TAX Stamp was illegal.
And I'll quote the closing words right back at Laci
"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty....
Standing armies used by Monarchies or Oligarchies to maintain internal order were the bane of liberty at the time.
Why do those on the Nanny-State side have such a problem with the Oath Keepers?
An organization whose sole purpose is to promote the ideals of liberty; to avoid a standing army being used against citizens?
Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [ I Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789}])
And is that not what Laci, you Baldr and other anti-rights cultists are seeking to do?
The militia isn't just the National Guard, contrary to wishes. It is the men and women of this country ready to defend it.
So, why are you attempting to disarm the populace if not to destroy liberty?
Thank you.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, your extremism is showing. Your hatred for our government has made you paranoid. Despite your desire for it to be so, a "militia" as defined by the second amendment isn't simply a reference to the common populous, but rather an organized armed force managed by the state. And, I might add, not for the purpose of toppling governments. Your idea of "liberty" is the same as anarchy.
ReplyDeleteBaldr,
ReplyDeleteFirst and foremost, I don't hate our government and I deeply resent you trying to slur me by saying so.
I am a veteran (4 years air force), come from a long line of veterans, and currently have a son serving in the military.
If you can't debate the issue without slander, maybe you should just give up.
Second, your definition of the militia isn't fully correct. I challenge you to provide legal citations to support your contention.
If you can.
UNITED STATES CODE
TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A - General Military Law
PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA
§ 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are --
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia;
and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
UNITED STATES CODE
TITLE 32 - NATIONAL GUARD
CHAPTER 3 - PERSONNEL
§ 313. Appointments and enlistments: age limitations
(a) To be eligible for original enlistment in the National Guard, a person must be at least 17 years of age and under 45, or under 64 years of age and a former member of the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps. To be eligible for reenlistment, a person must be under 64 years of age.
(b) To be eligible for appointment as an officer of the National Guard, a person must -
(1) be a citizen of the United States; and
(2) be at least 18 years of age and under 64.
You will note the two distinct and separate classes -- Members of the National Guard and member of the unorganized Militia.
http://www.lneilsmith.org/militia.html
Using the Miller Decision cited by Laci
The Miller Court defined the militia exactly as it existed in colonial days. The Court described the militia's membership as all able-bodied adult males and noted that the government had expected militiamen to supply their own arms. [112] Thus, the Court implicitly determined the civilian defendants in Miller to be members of the militia. [113]
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Dougherty1.html
You are correct the militia's purpose is not for toppling governments. It is for safeguarding individual liberty from tyrannical governments -- like the one our founding fathers fought against.
I am no more interested in anarchy then you are. You seem to have special powers to read so much into so little writing.
I am interested in limited government. Why aren't you?
Sorry, anon, but you need to be organised under according to Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 to be a militia under the Second Amendment.
ReplyDeleteArticle 1, Section 8, Clause 16
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;
Miller has not been made obsolete by Heller-McDonald.
First off, by disregarding Sandidge v. United States, 520 A.2d 1057 (D.C. 1987) and the precedent of US v. Miller, the Supreme Court has given the go ahead to pick and choose what precedent one wishes to accept.
Likewise, given http://lacithedog.wordpress.com/2010/09/02/if-you-saw-a-blind-three-legged-29-year-old-horse-win-the-derby/Scalia's connection to the "Gun Right's" Community (SAF 2007 Ambassador), it can be argued that it was Scalia's personal bias and not a valid legal opinion.
Even worse, Justice Stevens restated the Miller decision in both of his DISSENTS.
I am only expressing a dormant, but the only historically and legally valid construction of the Second Amendment.
And as for the old canard of looking to the gun, Sorry!
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.
Judicial notice is a rule in the law of evidence that allows a fact to be introduced into evidence if the truth of that fact is so notorious or well known that it cannot be refuted.
If it were about the gun's being a part of "the ordinary military equipment", it would have fallen into judicial notice.
Anyway, you are arguing with Justice William O. Douglas, one of the longest seated Supreme Court Justices who happened to be on the court at the time Miller was decided.
I think he knows more about the Miller decision than you do, anon.
I would also point out to Anonymous, Article III, Section iii which defines the only Constitutional crime:
ReplyDeleteTreason.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
Constitutional defenders such as Anonymous and the oath keepers need to bone up on what they are defending.
Laci,
ReplyDeleteI'm confused. Are you saying that the opinions stated in the dissent of a Supreme Court decision have a valid legal standing?
I'm not lawyer -- but doesn't this part:
such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States,
Mean that the Federal Constitution applies only to the militia IF they are called into Federal service?
If it doesn't, then why haven't the various state laws governing militias been ruled unconstitutional?
it can be argued that it was Scalia's personal bias and not a valid legal opinion.
Just about anything can be argued. It can be argued that you know what you are talking about, that doesn't necessarily make the argument true.
Please provide evidence that a Supreme Court Decision of the majority of the court can be declared not a valid legal opinion.
Until then, it sounds as if you want to re-write history. Miller said one thing and because you agree with it, you want to void Heller and McDonald.
Your contention doesn't address the fact that the Supreme Court didn't rule the weapon to be not protected, it wanted the lower court to decide that.
The Court did not expressly rule. This question was returned to the lower court. The Court did raise the question on whether a shotgun was a weapon properly used by the militia, if a shotgun was a weapon properly used to enforce laws, suppress insurrections, or repel invasions. While the Court did not make it explicit, it would seem that if Miller's defense could establish shotguns are properly militia weapons, Miller would likely have a right to carry the shotgun.
Since Miller died before that could happen, it was never decided.
Surely you aren't going to claim that sawed off shotguns haven't been used in war; before or after Miller, are you?
I am only expressing a dormant, but the only historically and legally valid construction of the Second Amendment.
It is dormant because no one believe it to be valid.
Did the Court rule out the possibility of an individual Right to bear Arms?
Most if not all of the States have adopted provisions touching the right to keep and bear arms. Differences in the language employed in these have naturally led to somewhat variant conclusions concerning the scope of the right guaranteed. But none of them seem to afford any material support for the challenged ruling of the court below.
No. The Court acknowledged that there were alternate ways to understand the Second Amendment. However, in the opinion of the Court, none of these various alternative readings would effect the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act. This makes sense. If the National Firearms Act does not place an undue restriction on a member of the Militia, it does not place undue restriction on an individual.
http://polyticks.com/polyticks/beararms/shotgun.htm
Keep on trying Laci. Maybe some day you'll be able to convince anyone else of your beliefs but it won't happen soon.
As for as treason....what in the Oath Keeper's creed could possible constitution treason?
Anon, are you saying that opinions stated in the dissent of a Supreme Court decision don't have legal validity?
ReplyDeleteI see you chose to ignore my explanation of Judicial Notice, and won't bother with any further explanation.
Ditto the explanation that Militias are state institutions, and the army is a federal one. It's pretty clear in the Constitution. You can even look to the Articles of Confederation Article VI for further back up of that assertion.
In case you missed it, Miller was Unanimous (No dissent), yet it was ignored. Likewise, Sandidge v. United States, 520 A.2d 1057 (D.C. 1987) was solid precedent, until Judge Silberman decided that they were irrelevant.
As far as I know, the Second Amendment has not be amended to add language which would delete the militia clause, or add "in defense of the home". That would mean that Heller is invalid.
Lisewise, given that Scalia is biased toward the Interpretation he gave, he is willing to produce an intellectually dishonest opinion.
Since four justices held that the Interpretation given by Justice Douglas (remember him if You read Miller? : Mr. Justice DOUGLAS took no part in the consideration or decision of this cause.).
Obviously Anon, you are not familiar with Article VI of the Constitution which States:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Likewise, failing to follow the lawful order of a superior, whether he is liked or not, and Article II, Section 2:
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States,
BTW, anon, Got that, the Militia of the several States?????
As for persuading you that I am correct, I know that I am wasting my time. But there are others who are more willing to look dispassionately at the historical documents to find that the interpreation of the Second Amendment that you are proposing in based in half truths and historical fictions.
BTW< anon, if you understood this quote:
ReplyDeleteMost if not all of the States have adopted provisions touching the right to keep and bear arms. Differences in the language employed in these have naturally led to somewhat variant conclusions concerning the scope of the right guaranteed. But none of them seem to afford any material support for the challenged ruling of the court below.
Which was that the District Court held that section 11 of the Act violates the Second Amendment. It accordingly sustained the demurrer and quashed the indictment.
No. The Court acknowledged that there were alternate ways to understand the Second Amendment. However, in the opinion of the Court, none of these various alternative readings would effect the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act. This makes sense. If the National Firearms Act does not place an undue restriction on a member of the Militia, it does not place undue restriction on an individual.
You would realise that it supports MY INTERPRETATION
As I said, your position is intellectually dishonest and yo have provided proof for that assertion.
Thank you.
BTW, If I were solely basing my opinion about Heller-McDonald on the "gun Control issue" rather than its Unhistoric and inaccurate interpretation of the Second Amendment, I would have no problem with Heller-McDonald.
ReplyDeleteYou seem to have missed what happened–here is the Heller-McDonald language:
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Heller at 54-5
Which has as a footnote (26):
We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.
Better yet:
But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Heller at 64
From McDonald:
It is important to keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 54). We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” Id., at ___–___ (slip op., at 54–55). We repeat those assurances here. Despite municipal respondents’ doomsday proclamations, incorporation does not imperil every law regulating firearms. McDonald at 39-40
The only thing off the table is anything that purports to be a ban. Which leads to my question: had Chicago theoretically allowed for registrations (as does New York City) since that is not an “absolute prohibition”– would the law have passed constitutional muster? After all, NYC’s law has been around for 99 years: doesn’t that count as a longstanding regulatory measure?
Likewise, given that the Second Amendment addresses Congress's power under Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 to:
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia.
It cannot apply to the States!
So, Anonymous, AKA Bob S., Please stop wasting my time with the same questions. You have on more than once demonstrated that you are incapable of understanding the concepts of Constitutional law for whatever reason.
My objection is not to whether Heller-McDonald supports gun control or doesn't, I object in that it falsely states the history and Constitutional frame work of the Second Amendment.