WEDNESDAY, APRIL 2, 1969                          473

The next change which the committee made in the proposals of the Commission on Constitutional Revision comes in Section 13. Militia. After the word "state" there is a semicolon. This is a clerical error that can be corrected and will be corrected by the Clerk. There should be a comma, so that the section reads "a safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That is the exact language of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

A further change will be found on page 4, line 37. This is in Section 15, with reference to education: "That free government rests, as does all progress, upon the broadest possible diffusion of knowledge, and that the Commonwealth should avail itself of those talents which nature has sown so liberally among its people by assuring the opportunity for their fullest development throughout the Commonwealth by an effective system of education." The committee has modified the language slightly. This is not restricted to any particular type of education. It speaks of the diffusion of knowledge throughout the Commonwealth by an effective system of education.

Those are all of the changes which have been made from the original resolution as it came from the Commission.

MR. McMURRAN: I thought perhaps you might want to point out the amendment at the top of page 4, line 1.

MR. HARRELL: I thank the gentleman for bringing that to my attention. In Section 11, with reference to prohibited discrimination, after the word "color", the word "sex" has been inserted so that the section reads: "race, color, sex, or national origin shall not be abridged".

MRS. GALLAND-. Mr. Harrell, referring to the language in Section 13, "therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", I believe you just said that this was in essence identical to the language in the federal Constitution. It was the apparent consensus of the committee that this language had no effect upon the right of the Commonwealth or its local subdivisions to enact reasonable gun legislation.

Would you assure me once more that this is the fact?

MR. HARRELL: I will for the record. There is no question of the constitutionality of such controls. That has been established under the federal Constitution. There are certain federal controls with reference to firearms.

MRS. GALLAND: Thank you.

MR. DURLAND: I am concerned about the specifics of your last answer. Will the gentleman assure me that within the context of his previous statement that preventive legislation affecting gun control will not be prohibited by this language? For example, legislation that would come before the fact, such as licensing and registration, rather than after the fact?

MR. HARRELL: It would be my judgment and opinion that what the gentleman refers to would not be prohibited. This is language which comes from the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and as the gentleman well knows, there are many federal statutes which have some effect upon firearms. This will not do anything more on the State level than has been done on the federal level.

MR. DURLAND: Would the gentleman tell me what rights are now being infringed or what rights he envisions might be infringed, requiring the explicit statement in the Constitution at this time?

MR. HARRELL: This merely puts into the Constitution of Virginia what is in

474                 HOUSE DEBATES ON CONSTITUTIONAL REVISION

the Constitution of the United States, to which, of course, we are all subject. Certainly our Constitution could not be in derogation of the federal Constitution.

MR. DURLAND: Are there other provisions of the United States Constitution that you would like to put in our Constitution at this time?

MR. HARRELL: No, sir. I would like to limit them extremely, and I think that is what has been done.

MR. DURLAND: I take it that "therefore" is used to indicate that the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is to modify the previous phrase concerning a "well regulated militia".

MR. HARRELL: Yes. That is the reason the comma should be there rather than the semicolon. The clause creates no additional rights.

MR. DURLAND: Then do you not think that perhaps the Dalton amendment may be repetitive, duplicitous, or redundant since that also would be in the first phrase already in the Constitution as written by George Mason?

MR. HARRELL: I do not see that there would be any conflict. Whatever other statements are in the Bill of Rights, this merely states something that has been a right and merely puts into the Virginia Constitution what is in the federal Constitution.

MR. DURLAND: This is a friendly question, in order to save the time of the House. Prior to my questions to you today, I contemplated introducing an amendment which would read as follows: After "therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms", I would insert "and to be protected from the danger of the abuse of that right as the public safety may require". I chose these words from other parts of the Bill of Rights. They are phrases originated by George Mason in other sections, so they seem to be pertinent as far as language is concerned but perhaps unnecessary, in view of the statements that you just made. So my question is, do you think that the phrase as now written makes it implicit that the people have a right to be protected from the danger of the abuse of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, as the public safety may require?

MR. HARRELL: I certainly do.

MR. DURLAND: Thank you very much.