as "a body of armed citizens trained to military duty, who may be called out in certain cases, but may not be kept on service like standing armies, in time of peace. #107 The Court also recognized the existence of "all portions of the 'militia'--organized or not .108

The Court concluded that "there is no basis for an argument that the federal statutory scheme deprives [a state] of any constitutional entitlement to a separate militia of its own."109 The Court failed even to suggest that the Second Amendment had any bearing on the issue.

In sum, it was clear enough to the Supreme Court in 1990 that "the people" in the Second Amendment means individuals generally, as it does in the rest of the Bill of Rights; that the "militia" means the body of armed citizens at large, organized and unorganized; and that the Second Amendment is not relevant to the power of a states to maintain the militia.

Inherent in the right to keep and bear arms is the penumbral right to obtain and transfer arms. A Tennessee court has held: "The right to keep arms necessarily involves the right to purchase them, to keep them in a state of efficiency for use, and

107 Id., quoting Dunne V. People, 94 Ill. 120 (1879) (emphasis added).

108 Id. at 2429 n.25.

109 Id. at 2429. "[The Constitution left] under the sway of the states undelegated the control of the militia to the extent that such control was not taken away by the exercise by Congress of its power raise armies." Id. at 2430 n.29, quoting Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366, 383 (1918).

to purchase and provide ammunition suitable for such arms, and to keep them in repair. "110 The U.S. Supreme Court has not addressed that specific point, but Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381 U.S. 301 (1965) invalidated government interference with the importation of communist political propaganda. In his concurring opinion, Justice Brennan stated:

It is true that the First Amendment contains no specific guarantee of access to publications. However, the protection of the Bill of Rights goes beyond the specific guarantees to protect from congressional abridgement those equally fundamental personal rights necessary to make the express guarantees fully meaningful. . .

"Constitutional provision for the security of person and property should be liberally construed.111 Under this logic, the Bill of Rights protects the right to obtain firearms by importation, just as it protects the right to obtain printed matter by importation.

110 Andrews v. State, 3 Heisk. (Tenn.) 165, 8 Am. Repts. 8, 13 (1871). See Rhodes v. R.G. Industries, 173 Ga.App. 51, 325 S.E. 2d 465, 466-67 (1985) (Second Amendment precludes product liability for marketing of safe firearms to the general public).

111 Id. at 308-09.

to

The same principles apply interpretation of the Second Amendment. Ullman v. United States, 350 U.S. 422, 426-29 (1956) states:

This constitutional protection must not be interpreted
in a hostile or niggardly spirit.
Such a view
does scant honor to the patriots who sponsored the Bill
Rights as a condition to acceptance of the
Constitution by the ratifying States. . .

of

As no constitutional guarantee enjoys preference, so none should suffer subordination or deletion. . . To view a particular provision of the Bill of Rights with disfavor inevitably results in a constricted application of it. This is to disrespect the Constitution.

Far from construing it liberally, proponents of firearms bans would ignore the Second Amendment altogether. If the Bill of Rights is to survive, each and every one of its guarantess must be respected.

ww

HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH

Deborah Prothrow-Stith, M.D.

Assistant Dean, Government and Community Programs

Lecturer, Health Policy and Management

July 26, 1991

Charles Schumer, Chairman

Subcommittee on Crime and Criminal Justice

362 Ford House Office Building

Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Schumer:

Andrew Fois of your staff was kind enough to ask me to testify at a recent hearing of your subcommittee but I was unable to do so because of scheduling conflicts.

However, I appreciate the privilege of being able to supply you with the following testimony which I hope will inform your process of drafting safe schools legislation.

I bring a special perspective to the subject of curbing violence, especially violence in our schools and the streets of our cities, because I am a doctor and previously, Massachusetts public health commissioner. Now, as an assistant dean and member of the faculty at the Harvard School of Public Health, I am very involved in helping people, particularly doctors, understand adolescent violence as a public health problem.

During my internship at the Boston City Hospital I became frustrated with the common attitude that violence among young adults, mostly black males, was somehow inevitable. I strongly believe that this violence, most of it what I call "acquaintence violence," is preventable.

677 Huntington Avenue Boston, Massachusetts 02115 617 432-1090 Fax 617 432-4494

2

There is no better setting than the schools to implement a violence prevention strategy. As public health practitioners, we know that some of the social and cultural influences related to the risk of violent behavior are not easily changed. Poverty, racism, adolescent developmental issues and gender expectations, are not easily changed. It is the personal, behavioral and spontaneous characteristics of violence that raise the most concern and which, fortunately, offer opportunities for intervention. About 50% of victims and assailants know each other; 20% of victims and assailants are members of the same family. One-half of homicides are precipitated by an argument, compared to only 15% occurring in the course of committing another crime.

Evidence is mounting that violence is a learned response to stress and conflict. Violence on television has also been associated with violent behavior in children and youth. There are public health strategies currently being developed which directly respond to these facts about violence among youth today. In this testimony, I will describe aspects of one such strategy: violence prevention programs for our schools.

First, it is important to understand that I am talking about saving our children, helping our children to survive in a turbulent world which condones violence. Schools are an essential setting for helping children learn how to get along together. Historically, schools and public health have been partners in many types of prevention programs designed to respond to disease epidemics and health problems: vaccinations for polio, diptheria, mumps and measles; health and vision testing, innoculations for tuberculosis and screening for scoliosis; and courses about fitness, nutrition and reproduction, exercise and physical education programs, and so forth.

I submit to you that violence is a public health problem of

46-787 0 91 - 30