Date: Thu Nov 4 14:59:30 1999 From: jason@MRG1.LA.ASU.EDU (Jason Diefenbacher) Subject: Korwin gun debate as ASU To: AZRKBA@asu.edu
Hey All, Missed everyone at the Ben Avery thing due to traffic, but at least things turned out well. Got back a while ago from the 2A debate at the ASU law college. I'll try to give some impressions. I have a few notes, but this is mostly from memory. First of all, let me congratulate Alan. He did a great job and came off far more personable than Dr. Bender. Bender came across as a lawyer. More interested in cutting legal hairs, rather than looking at the overall picture. I will also apologize to both for doing an extremely short summation of their arguments. They were each initially given 10 minutes for their initial argument. (Good timing Alan). Korwin started off and painted a good picture of individual rights and informed the audience that they have been handed the "big lie" by the media. They want to disarm te public and allow only the rulers to be armed. How registration is only a list of the law abiding and that no criminal prosecutions come from registration. He also advised that *all* SC cases were supportive of the individual right to bear arms. Guns save lives and stop crime. Bender's argument settled entirely on the argument of 'to what extent is gun control legislation constitutional?' He divided it into two parts, the federal constitution and the state (AZ) constitution. He cited everyone's favorite 2nd Am. case, US vs. Miller. According to his reading, Miller's rights were not upheld, since the weapon (a sawed off shotgun) was not relevant to the 'common defense' and therefore was not protected. He said also that the 2nd was not included in the 14th amendment since it did not pass the test of being required for 'ordered liberty'. On the state side, he surmised that there was indeed a protection for guns required for individual defense. He said that it was then open to regulation as to what was 'needed' for individual defense. The next stage allowed 4 mins each for rebuttal. Alan then corrected some omissions to Bender's reading of Miller, such as, no one argued against the US in the SC case and brought back the idea of original intent of the 2A (Bender brought this up in interpretation) and read and entire list of quotes from the founders (from inside the AZ Gun Owners Guide). So much for intent. Bender didn't really say much in his rebuttal, at least worthy of note, since I have nothng written down, although at that point I had already formulated my question regarding Miller, so I may have missed something due to the saliva forming... Luckily I was near the front row and got noticed first for questions, so I sent one to Dr. Bender: Since US v Miller meant that individuals only had a right to own firearms that were deemed appropriate to the defense of the state against the fed (as per Bender-due to the militia clause and the decision in Miller) didn't that man that the AW ban, High cap mag ban, and ban on more automatic weapons were unconstitutional. I figured I had Bender eating out of my own hand... Well, I think he hedged. After arguing that there was such a distinction between what was allowed under the US Constitution vs the State Constitution, he said that it could still be constitutional, since the AZ National Guard did not allow the members to have their own M16's to take home at night. Personally, I thought this was a poor answer but couldnt go any further. I chatted a bit with him outside and think that there probably isn't much hope for him. Even though some of his arguments support our side, he clearly has a phobia and thinks that the world would be better if we could just wave a wand and have all guns go away. He even admitted to assisting in the redraft of the Lautenburg Gun Free School Zone law, after it was thrown by the SC. Anyway, for those of you who don't know me personally, that was me. To Alan, great job and I'm sorry I didn't get to talk with you afterward. I'll have to get the autograph some other time. You clearly were the winner of that debate. Dr. Bender probably would have been laughed off for some of his comments, except that he is a Law College professor and much of the audience was law students.
jason
-- Jason Diefenbacher Jason.Diefenbacher@asu.edu Arizona State University jason@argo.la.asu.edu Science & Engineering of Materials Progra (480) 965-0538 Box 871704 fax (480) 965-0474 Tempe, AZ 85287-1704 http://mrsec.la.asu.edu/jason