Keep and Bear Arms Home Page
This article was printed from
For more gun- and freedom-related information, visit

Dianne Feinsteins' Latest Incredible Lie

by Merrill Gibson

July 30, 2001

Anyone who could so blatantly lie in direct violation of a sworn oath to undermine the very liberty of a nation is E-V-I-L!

click to enlarge

Dianne Feinstein on July 10th wrote a letter to Secretary of State Colin Powell, complaining about Attorney General John Ashcroft's position on the Second Amendment and how the State Department had used his stance to help formulate the US position at the latest UN small arms conference. The letter was heavily publicized by Feinstein, the basic idea of the letter being that Ashcroft was an ignorant running dog of the NRA.

In the letter, Feinstein quoted the Miller Supreme Court decision. I have read this decision, and didn't recognize an important phrase that Feinstein said was in the decision. It made a substantial change in the meaning of the decision, compared to what I remembered, in a way that made it seem that Miller supported a favorite talking point of Feinstein and her fellow fascists. I thought to myself "Now, there's NO WAY Dianne Feinstein would misquote a Supreme Court decision, in a highly publicized letter to an important government official. It's so easy to check. It would be so embarrassing to her if someone found out. Did I forget something about Miller?" So I to looked up Miller and read the section Feinstein "quoted" again.

Feinstein HAD changed the wording of the Miller decision, put quotation marks around it as if she was quoting exactly, and even put in old style capitalization to make her fabrication seem authentic. Details follow.

I'm quoting (exactly - I'm just copying and pasting) the paragraph of Feinstein's letter to Powell:

"In rejecting a motion to dismiss the case on Second Amendment grounds, the Court held that the 'obvious purpose' of the Second Amendment was 'to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness' of the 'state Militia.' Because a sawed-off shotgun was not a weapon that would be used by a 'state Militia' (like the National Guard), the Second Amendment was in no way applicable to that case, said the Court."

Here's what Miller really says (again I'm just cutting and pasting):

"The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power--'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.' With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view."

No mention of "state Militia". Or "state militia" either. In fact, NOWHERE in the entire Miller decision is the phrase "state Militia" or "state militia" mentioned. And the "state Militia" (like the National Guard) that Feinstein falsely inserted are NOT the "forces" referred to by the REAL Miller language. State militia which are like the National Guard are part of the organized militia. The organized militia is a very different entity than the Militia referred to by the constitutional language that the Miller decision quotes (they are just one component of the Militia.) Militia refers to all men in the country capable of bearing arms. The organized militia are units of part time professional soldiers (indeed like the present day National Guard.) Militia, organized militia, and unorganized militia are all different things, and they are all well defined in 10 U.S.C. 311(a)-(c).

The reason that this is significant is that Feinstein et. al. want you to believe that the Second Amendment just says that the states can keep their own militias, it doesn't have anything to do with individual rights. The falsified language that Feinstein invented and inserted into her quote makes it sound like Miller supports her claim of what the Second Amendment means.

So I guess I was wrong that Feinstein wouldn't dare do this, or that someone would expose it if she did. As far as I know, nobody has mentioned her lie.

In this message, I don't have time to discuss several important issues related to Miller that don't relate to the Feinstein lie. For instance, why the Miller decision strongly supports the individual right interpretation of the Second, or why the Miller decision is wrong when it says that the Second's only purpose is to render possible an effective Militia. See me sometime at a meeting if you're interested.

If you want to see the whole Feinstein letter to Powell, email me and I'll email it to you (it's too long to insert here.)

If you want to read the entire Miller decision, go to  (HTML)


Related Reading