In a submission to the Northwestern "Military grade weaponry not suitable for hunting" (February 11), the writer offered his opinion on military-grade firearms and the Second Amendment. In his first statement he quoted the Second Amendment and made a vague comment that the "militia" stated within the amendment was a "trained organization."
Is that a reference to the National Guard? There are several problems with this assertion. One, if "the people" stated in the Amendment is the National Guard, how does that translate with the other amendments using the same term "the people" as in the First, Fourth, Ninth, Tenth? Additionally, courts have ruled that the Second Amendment is an individual right as in the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008). I asked David Hardy, an attorney with writings in numerous court cases to include the Supreme Court case of McDonald v. Chicago, about the status of the National Guard within the context of the amendment. Are they the militia?
He writes there was mass confusion during WW I when the National Guard was incorporated into the U.S. Army. Thus, military bills introduced back in the 1930s addressed this question and were adopted by the government to make the National Guard a component of the U.S. Army.
Secondly, the writer believed that "military grade" firearms have no place in hunting. Such rifles have been used for hunting for decades such as Enfields, Springfield '06s, Garrands, and others. Over the years of hunting, I've never encountered someone using a rifle employing a 30 round magazine. Additionally, I've used an HK and my young sons have shot with an AK style rife but with only five round magazines. The number of rounds doesn't bring down a deer. It is discipline and skill.
F. Randall Harris