The question of militia groups lies at the edge of the gun control debate. Militia
supporters argue that their organizations are protected by the Second Amend-
ment. They believe that the amendment provides the opportunity to defend indi-
vidual freedom against a tyrannical government. This position involves what many
consider a curious argument that the Constitution guarantees a right to revolt
against the governmental structure that it established: The governing document
plants the seeds of its own destruction. Supporters of the militia idea contend that
the protection of liberties against a powerful government must include the possi-
bility of violent resistance. Therefore, gun control legislation is viewed with special
suspicion because it is seen as denying the ability to take the ultimate step to
defend freedom against tyranny. Those less skeptical of government respond that
freedom ultimately depends on a legal order and a strong government that is able
to defend citizens against the encroachment on the rights of some by others in
society.

One of the more extreme arguments against gun control, made by such organi-
zations as Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, involves the charge
that it has often accompanied genocide. The nineteenth-century attempt to dis-
arm Native Americans, the effort to keep African Americans disarmed in the South
following Reconstruction, and the Nazi gun control policies that preceded the
Holocaust are often mentioned as examples of the dangers of gun control. Such
disarmament is thought to put the people at the mercy of an oppressive govern-
ment. Those more sympathetic to gun control conclude that such arguments are
historically inaccurate and less than persuasive, especially given that black youth
are particularly prone to suffer injury and death from firearms that appear to be
readily available, a limited form of genocide in itself. Therefore, it is not surprising
that groups representing minorities often support measures intended to limit mi-
nority youth access to firearms. For instance, the National Organization of Black
Law Enforcement Executives (NOBLE) has taken positions in favor of various
gun control legislation, as have such African-American legislators as John Conyers,
Democrat from Michigan.

The future of gun control depends on several factors. The outcome of lawsuits
being lodged against firearms manufacturers can have a significant impact on the
availability of firearms to the general public, especially if juries award damages to
claimants at the expense of companies. Such outcomes depend upon the willing-
ness of juries and courts of appeals to hold gun manufacturers responsible for the
marketing of their products. At the national level, partisan control of Congress
may have an important effect on the fortunes of such measures as mandating gun
locks and the one-gun-per-month limitation. If Democrats regain control of Con-
gress, the chances of further gun control legislation may improve significantly.
Finally, public opinion may play a role in future action. If the American public
remains supportive of specific gun control proposals, gun control advocates will
be able to argue more persuasively that they are carrying out a popular mandate.
The future will likely mirror the past, with gun interests strongly opposing addi-
tional regulations, but with compromises being reached as the interests support-
ing legislation make their case for additional legislation.

-xviii-