THURSDAY, APRIL 3, 1969                       391
 

    Next taken up was the amendment offered by Senator Barnes, to Section 13.
Militia; standing armies; military subordinate to civil power; on page 4, line 24, after
"state," which amendment would add a clause assuring that "therefore, the right
of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

    Senator Barnes: Mr. President and gentlemen of the Senate, I dare say that
not a person on this floor at the time we opened this session realized that these
words were not in our state Constitution. I will read the second amendment to
the federal Constitution: "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."

    This apparently was of such concern to the General Assembly of Virginia that
in 1964 they passed a resolution, of which I will read part only, to be brief. I am
reading from a research document termed "Constitutional and Statutory Aspects
of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms" by Alien S. Trube, Resource Economist,
Regional Analysis Center, Institute for Research on Land and Water Resources,
Pennsylvania State University, presented at the 1966 statewide in-service training
conference of the Pennsylvania Game Commission, Pennsylvania State Univer-
sity: "Resolved by the House of Delegates, the State Senate concurring, that the
right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by the second amendment to the Consti-
tution of the United States, and which right is an inalienable part of our citizens'
heritage in this state, shall not be infringed, that any action taken by the General
Assembly of Virginia to interfere with this right would strike at the basic liberty
of our citizens."

    The document further quotes from an article written by the Chief Justice of
the United States in a recent issue of the New York University Law Review, in
which he drew attention to the safeguards to the people contained in the federal

392            SENATE DEBATES ON CONSTITUTIONAL REVISION

Constitution: "Despite these safeguards the people were still troubled by the rec-
ollection of the conditions that prompted the charge of the Declaration of Inde-
pendence that the King had effected to render the military independent and superior
to the civilian power. They were reluctant"—talking about the people at the time
that this was written—"they were reluctant to ratify the Constitution without fur-
ther assurances, and thus, we find in the Bill of Rights amendments number 2 and
3 specifically authorizing a decentralized militia, guaranteeing the right of the
people to keep and bear arms, and prohibiting the boarding of troops in any house
in time of peace without the consent of the owner." This was written by the Chief
Justice of the United States.

    More recently the Honorable Hubert H. Humphrey, writing in connection
with the second amendment, said "Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom
under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of the
citizen to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be care-
fully used and that definite safety rules and precautions should not be called into
force. But the right of the citizen to bear arms is just one more guarantee against
arbitrary government,"—one more safeguard against the tyranny which historically
has been the greatest danger to freedom. I hope it will be the pleasure of the Sen-
ate to insert this language into our Bill of Rights.

    Senator Andrews: Mr. President, this is a true love-in of the Hatfields and Mc-
Coys; the great men of the mountains, Senator Barnes and Senator Long, are co-
patriots on this amendment. I think I need say no more and hope it will be the
pleasure of the Senate to concur with them and adopt the amendment.

    Senator Bateman: I rise with some trepidation after that announcement, Mr.
President, but I wonder if the Senator would yield for purposes of a question.

    Senator Barnes: Yes, sir.

    Senator Bateman: Senator Barnes, is it the intent or purpose of this amendment
to do anything other than what is done or protected by the safeguards of the second
amendment to the Constitution of the United States?

    Senator Barnes: No, sir, the purpose is identical.

    Senator Bateman: And is the purpose only to guarantee that which is already
guaranteed there?

    Senator Barnes: That is right.

    Senator Bateman: Then might I ask the Senator if he feels it is really necessary
since it is already guaranteed to all the citizens of the United States.

    Senator Barnes: We have written many things into our Constitution this time.
I think the people would feel more secure if it is in our Constitution.

    Senator Bateman: Would I then be correct that the purpose of this amendment
would not be to embarrass any existing constitutional rights or prerogatives of local
or state governing bodies to regulate or control the possession and ownership of
firearms?

    Senator Barnes: I do not think so. But I would like to yield the floor to Senator
Long who has had sixty years of practicing law. I think he can answer the legal
questions better than I can.

    Senator Bateman: I would like, Mr. President, to have that question answered
by the proponent of  the amendment. I have no concern so long as it retains the
present constitutional theory announced in the case law that follows from the sec-

THURSDAY, APRIL 3, 1969                        393

ond amendment to the federal Constitution. If the purpose is to go beyond that
then I would have some concern.

    Senator Long: I will just say a word about this. This is the same wording as
is in the Constitutions of thirty-five different States. And as stated by the Senator
from Tazewell, we practically adopted the same thing in a resolution in 1964r.

    The object and purpose of it is not to cripple law enforcement or anything of
that sort. It is simply that the sportsmen of this State are very much interested
in it. They think that they should have it since it is in the Constitution of thirty-
five States and is guaranteed to the citizens by the second amendment to the Con-
stitution of the United States which has been in force for many, many years. It
is certainly not for the purpose of starting up the Hatfields and McCoys again or
anything of that sort. But some citizens feel that they should be permitted to have
arms in their homes, and they think that this will give them some protection.

    Senator Howell: Mr. President, knowing that Senator Warren had a long way
to go, I have sat here very patiently and very quietly this morning and have not
even ruffled a single covey to fly up out of the marshes and cover any corner of the
House. But let us see what we are doing. I would urge us to be a little bit con-
sistent in our approach to the Constitution. I would say with a batting average
of about 900 percent that whenever we started to put anything in here that was
in the United States Constitution we shot it down quickly. We just shot down
Senator Hunter Andrews, a most persuasive gentleman.

    All the committee chairman has to do is say, "Well, this has never been before
the committee," and the bird never even gets out of the marshes. He is so wet
and bedraggled and downhearted he cannot even fly. He looks like one of these
oil-soaked birds in California that we are worried about. Here we have an amend-
ment that never went before any committee. I happen to be on Fish and Game,
and I am a member of the Izaak Walton League. I have not heard from the Izaak
Walton League or anyone that is concerned about the militia.

    We are not talking about the right to hunt, which I am all for. I think it is
one of the most healthful pursuits that man or woman can adopt—get up early
in the morning, fifteen below zero, and wrap up in thermal underwear, put on these
boots and go stand there in water and wait for the sun to come up and then fire
away, the bird having a free chance to take to the wing in the winds, and you have
a chance to level on him, and you are close to God and all is right in the heavens.

    But we are not talking about fish and game. This would be in the Conserva-
tion Article if it concerned fish and game. We are talking about state militia.
General Booth, whom we pay, I think, $16,000 a year to take care of the Virginia
National Guard, has the problem now that he has got so many weapons in the
arsenals and the armories he does not know what to do with them. They are even
selling them, they are surveying out rifles and howitzers and small arms and the
large arms. I stand here to say on behalf of our Virginia State Guard, here we have
citizen soldiers of our State making one of the most important sacrifices to the in-
ternal protection of this State of Virginia that I can conceive of. But we have not
heard anything from General Booth. We have heard nothing from the close to
15,000 patriotic hometown soldiers who belong to the Virginia State Guard.

    What we have is a paragraph, Section 13, that says that a well regulated militia
composed of a body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe
defense of a free state, that standing armies in time of peace should be avoided as

394             SENATE DEBATES ON CONSTITUTIONAL REVISION

dangerous to liberty, and that in all cases the military should be under strict subor-
dination to, and governed by, the civil power.

    This is a military guarantee in our Constitution, a guarantee that we shall have
hometown soldiers that can be rendezvoused under a system of command that I
think is adequate. No one thinks there is anything wrong with the Guardsmen,
and I think that we should hear from General Booth, we should hear from the
State Guard, because they are the militia.

    I do not think there is, a single, solitary person in this Senate that wants to
have a "minifense." You must remember that what is in the Constitution of the
United States was written right after 1776. That was when Benjamin Franklin
and Thomas Jefferson were spending many late hours trying to get a consensus and
we were just throwing off the yoke of King George. If King George was over here
you would have a hard time being an American. We threw off that yoke of tyranny,
but the States were not quite certain what they had created, and so they wanted
to make sure that we would not have another King George walking around here,
going in their homes and breaking up their hometown militias. They wanted no
more Boston teaparties where you had to take law in your own hands and throw
tea out in the ocean to demonstrate against the principle of taxation without repre-
sentation.

    But remember, we got rid of King George, we won the war, we are one nation,
a civilized society, with a great state National Guard, and we certainly do not need
to monkey around with the militia. The militia is happy, the soldiers are happy,
we are at peace with the soldiers, the soldiers are at peace with us. And I want
you to see on page 98 of the revisors' report, that the source of Section 13 is the
present Section 13; "Comment: No change."

    Senator Bateman: Senator Long, I ask the question with some fear, but I was
not sure of exactly the situation from my previous question. Is it the sole purpose
of the proponents of the amendment to realign the language of our Bill of Rights
on this subject with the language and the purpose and the same protections as are
in the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States?

    Senator Long: Yes.

    Senator Bateman: And it has no purpose of limiting or diminishing or adversely
affecting any existing power of any political body or entity to regulate or control
the possession and use of firearms by the people?

    Senator Long: No, sir.

    Mr. President, I would like to say just one word in reply to what has been said
by the junior Senator from Norfolk, that this has not been heard or discussed. I
would like to say that this was heard by the committee on the House side. They
adopted the amendment, the bill is here on this side from the House. They have
passed it. They had a hearing, they had discussions on the floor about it, and they
adopted this amendment, and the House bill I think is already over here with
exactly the same words.

    President Pollard: The question is on agreeing to the amendment submitted
by the Senator from Tazewell, Senator Barnes.

    The amendment offered by Senator Barnes was agreed to by recorded vote of

    31 Yeas and 1 Nay.