It's not about guns...

It's about citizenship

The Potowmack Institute
4423 LeHigh Road, Suite 273
College Park, MD 20740

at sign
leave out then's and spaces.
The e-mail address is presented this way to defeat the spam miscreants

PayPal Paybox
revised 09/09/2008

[PotomackForum], Interactive Posting
[ARCHIVE], Potowmack Institute files
[RESOURCES], Newspaper, magazine, journal articles, books, links

Assaulting Jim Zumbo

The NRA on Extremists

NRA scams its members

The Lionel Show
AirAm Radio's ignorant, crude, ugly,
air waves barbarian
Dear John Ashcroft
The armed populace doctrine at the DOJ
The Washington Post
cultivating ignorance.
"Sixty Minutes"
Failing its Mission
NPR's Diane Rehm
Civilized without Substance.
A longstanding dereliction.
Violence Policy Center
The public health agenda
falls in line with the NRA.
Getting it right but
failing its mission in the
larger struggle
Militia Act of 1792
To enroll— conscript, register

Return of Militia
Inventory of private weapons in
the early Republic reported to the
President of the US
John Kenneth Rowland
Lawrence Cress
John K. Mahon
LaPierre's list

The Quotes, the Quotes
Fabricating the armed populace doctrine
Libertarians, Conservatives

Tenn. Law Rev., 1995

Chicago-Kent Symposium, 2000
What does the NRA want?

update June 5, 2009

The Ninth Circuit released its revised opinion in Nordyke (2003) on April 20, 2009.
We have a long standing crisis in domestic gun violence and a growing crisis in violence and sovereignty on the Southwest border. We now also have a crisis in the advance of anarchic doctrines on the federal judiciary. The revised Nordyke opinion is in conflict with NRA v. Chicago released June 2, 2009 and Maloney v. Cuomo (2009).

II. Sovereignty and the appalling spectacle of anarchic federal judges

When federal judge Kleinfeld with co-signers in dissent to the Ninth Circuit denial of an en banc hearing of Silveira, speak of an "amorphous body” of the armed people, no different from the NRA’s "armed populace at large" or LENIN’s “armed masses”, a burden falls on the federal judiciary to define and defend constitutional government against anarchy.

The complete Silveira dissents are at:
The orginal Silveira opinion is at:

Here is how far we have fallen: It was Judge Kleinfeld's dissent that spoke positively of an amorphous body of the armed populace. In his Parker opinion, Judge Silberman cites Kleinfeld's dissent twelve times. By affirming Judge Silberman's opinion the Supreme Court has embraced indirectly at least Kleinfeld's dissent. This is what we have come to. Instead of defining and defending constitutional government against anarchy, the DC Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, in throwing a meaningless political sop to the gun vote and the gun rights ideologies, has embraced anarchy and otherwise created a constitutional mess. This is all about politics and demagoguery not constitutional doctrine.

On rereading, the dissent is much worse than it originally appeared. This is all really quite confused and nonsensical. The gun rights ideologies did not get what they want: The right to be armed outside of the knowledge and reach of law and government in order to maintain the "armed populace at large". The "amorphous body"—that is, the NRA's "armed populace at large"— is still subject to "reasonable regulations and restrictions" and registered "for militia service if called up". Is there any political leadership to make sense out of the absurdity?

[PotowmackForum] interactive posting

[ARCHIVE], Potowmack Institute files
[RESOURCES], Newspaper, magazine, journal articles, books, links

© Potowmack Institute