The Second Amendment: Does It Give You The Right To Own A Gun?
georgann
YES.
c.c.
georgann
---forgiven since 33 A.D.---
Walt Horning
I have to disagree with you, strongly.
FIRST, if the government is anyway involved whatsover in the ownership
of citizens to own and carry guns, its implicitly "infringement".
Thus, for example, a national guard is an "infringement", because the
government regulates the national guard.
If on the other hand the citizens self-regulate themselves, then its
impossible for the government to infringe in anyway.
In otherwords, the government infringes when its regulates in any way,
shape or form, but it does not infringe when the people regulate
themselves.
Just as the three branches of government are part of the system of
"checks and balances", a "citizen's militia" composed of citizens not
under the direct control of the government form a 4th leg of a system
of "checks and balances".
SECOND, The historical record proves all of the above to be true,
because it reflects the thinking by our founding fathers of the
correct interpretation of the Second Admendment:
(1) 4TH LEG OF "CHECKS AND BALANCES" AND INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO BE ARMED
"No man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason
for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last
resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." --
Thomas Jefferson, June 1776
(2) MORE OF THE SAME
COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES;
WITH A PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF THE
COLONIES AND STATES, BEFORE THE ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION.
BY JOSEPH STORY, LL. D.,
DANE PROFESSOR OF LAW IN HARVARD UNIVERSITY (1833)
ยง 1858.
"A large proportion of the most valuable of the provisions in Magna
Carta, and the bill of rights in 1688, consists of a solemn
recognition, of limitations upon the power of parliament; that is, a
declaration, that parliament ought not to abolish, or restrict those
rights. Such are the right of trial by jury; the right to personal
liberty and private property according to the law of the land; that
the **subjects** ought to have a right to bear arms; ..."
ยง 1890.
His comments on the 2nd Admendment:
"...The right of the **citizens** to keep and bear arms has justly
been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic;
since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and
arbitrary power of rulers; ...."
(3) WHO IS THE MILITIA? ITS ALL OF THE CITIZENS
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people,
except for a few public officials." (George Mason)
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of
people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when
young, how to use them." (Richard Henery Lee, 1788, Initiator
of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first
Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights.)
"The great object is that every man be armed" and "everyone who
is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia
Convention on the ratification of the Constitution.)
"the ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone,"
(James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist
Paper No. 46.)
"...the people are confirmed by the next article [2nd Admendment] in
their right to keep and bear their private arms" (from article in
the Philadelphia Federal Gazette ten days after the introduction of
the Bill of Rights)
(4) WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE CITIZEN'S MILITIIA? TO DEFEND
CITIZENS RIGHTS EVEN AGAINST ITS OWN GOVERNMENT
"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the
establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. ...
Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of
the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in
order to raise an army upon their ruins." (Rep. Elbridge Gerry
of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second
mendment)
"...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the
government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can
never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there
is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them
in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their
rights..." (Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in
Federalist 29.)
"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to
authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or
the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The
United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own
arms..." (Samuel Adams)
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect
everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing
will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up
that force, you are inevitably ruined" (Patrick Henry)
(5) EUROPEANS DO NOT TRUST THE CITIZENS WITH ARMS; AMERICANS
ARE ALREADY ARMED AND ARE TO BE TRUSTED
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans
possess over the people of almost every other nation. ...
Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several
kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public
resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the
people with arms." (James Madison, author of the Bill of
Rights, in Federalist Paper No. 46.)
FOURTH, recent rulings in court are beginning to side with the
citizens. However, note that any decision by the courts that supresses
the personal possession of firearms is of itself an infringment by the
government.
In otherwords, The Constitution and its Admendments are even higher
than the courts in insuring the rights of the citizens, as well as the
powers of the government. For example, could the courts rule against
the powers of the government guaranteed in the Constitution? It would
be absurd for the Supreme Court to say Congress cannot pass a law that
meets Constitution protection. It just as absurd for the courts to
tell citizens they cannot carry guns.
Sources you may see online:
http://www.old-yankee.com/rkba/rkba.html
<snip>
>The Second Amendment
>
>Does It Give You The Right To Own A Gun?
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>The Second Amendment to the Constitution states, "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."
>
>At first glance, this provision seems to guarantee all citizens the right to "keep
>and bear" the weapon of their choice. However, a careful look at the legal and
>historical background of the Second Amendment proves otherwise. Unlike the First
>Amendment, the Second Amendment begins with a qualifying statement that limits the
>scope of the rest of the amendment. The Second Amendment contains an expression of
>the purpose of the right: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security
>of a free state..."
You are wrong about its intended purpose as stated by our founding
fathers themselves (in my quotes). Where are yours? Your thought is
opinion, not fact.
>
> The First Amendment, on the other hand, contains no such statement of purpose
>serving to limit the scope of the rights guaranteed. Although Pro-gun groups contend
>that the authors of the Constitution intended the Second Amendment to protect the
>possession of arms, even absent a connection with the militia, judicial precedents
>have proved that the courts feel otherwise. Throughout the history of our nation, the
>United States Supreme Court and lower federal courts have consistently held that the
>Second Amendment right to bear arms is related to "a well-regulated militia."
Where is a case that has outright denied all citizens the rights to
bear arms? Where is your quotes? Again, just your opinion.
>
>Article I, Section 8 authorizes Congress:
>
>"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 officers,
>and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by
>Congress."
This does not run contrary to a "citizen's militia". See my quotes. In
fact the citizen militia is there to keep the government's military in
check. True, this seem absurd today, but in 1776, it was not so
absurd, since the level of "fire power" and "manpower" in 1776 could
easily overwhelm a government that used its military against its
citizens for no other cause than to supress the rights guaranteed to
them by the Constitution.
>
>The absolutist view of the Second Amendment, argued by some opponents of regulation
>of firearms, has not been sustained by a single U.S. Supreme Court or lower court
>decision in our nation's history, while a series of Supreme Court and lower federal
>court decisions has uniformly upheld regulation of private arms. No legislation
>regulating the private ownership of firearms has ever been struck down on Second
>Amendment grounds
Any rulings by the Courts contrary to the rights of the citizens to
own and bear arms are unconstitutional. In fact, the 2nd Admendment
actually garantees the rights of citizens to destroy its government if
it by any means attempts to destroy citizen's rights including the
right to bear arms. Of course its better to bring a lawsuit, to get a
ruling against the government itself. The only true method for the
government to remove the rights of citizens to bear arms is a an
Admendment to the Constitution. But that is a process where the
citizen's representatives vote on such a decision.
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>There are some very well financed "Independent" studies proving that the crime rate
>has decreased in states with Right to Carry laws. What they fail to mention is that
>the decrease in gun related crime is a national statistic. Crime rates have fallen
>off in all states, including those without Right to Carry laws. In fact, gun related
>deaths are higher in Right to Carry states than in states without Right to Carry
>laws.
This is a lie. In Australia, one year ago they took all the guns away.
For 25 years the crime rate has been falling in almost all categories
prior to this new law. In the past year, now that only the criminals
are "permitted" to carry guns, robbery, murder, muggings and rape (at
gun point) are all up.
The studies that I have read about, included considerations for
general trends and statistics, and still after this and after severe
critique, still proved that right-to-carry laws save lives and that
fewer murders are committed.
But again where are your proofs? You have none, you just have your
opinion only!
>
>So, it seems that Right to Carry laws don't play any significant part in overall
>national crime statistics. It's interesting to note that there are many reasons for
>this. It's not a simple fix, but the most obvious things to point out are the things
>that are common to all the states. First of all would be the economy. Crime rates
>historically decline during good economic times. All the states are now benefiting
>from a robust National economy.
While this is certainly true, the Australian model and the studies
prove that regardless of trends, economic or otherwise, carry a gun
saves lives.
>
>The second thing to point out is that many states have had Right to Carry laws for
>quite some time but gun related crimes didn't start to decline until shortly after
>passage of the "Brady Bill" and other gun control legislation. It's a shame that the
>actions of a few cause inconveniences for the rest of us but that's the way it is.
>Trigger locks, background checks and waiting periods are a small price to pay for a
>decrease in gun related deaths.
Show me such a study that proves the Brady Bill created a decrease in
crime (it did) but that Right to Carry laws did not.
Gun safety is not a problem for a citizen's militia. A citizen's
militia is a problem for you, and so is the history of this country.
Fact is that anti-gun forces are actually, IMHO, anti-American forces.
The proof is in the pudding. The historical record is clear that
pro-American thought was that the citizen's right to own and bear arms
is a guaranteed right. Control control of any kind whatsover, is
anti-American. My proof is in the statements by our founding
forefathers who gave us the 2nd Admendment and gave us its
interpretation at that same time.
The only stupid law is one that says that I have to stand there and
become a target for some criminal to shoot at without the ability to
shoot back.
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>As for the second amendment.
>
>The U.S. Conference of Mayors decided not to file a joint lawsuit against the
>firearms industry in an effort to reduce gun violence in the cities. The decision
>instead was to set up a task force with the gun makers to find a solution to the
>problem. However, this doesn't mean that some cities, which don't want to wait years
>for a task force recommendation, won't sue on their own. Chicago has been seriously
>considering doing just that. Officials there want gun distributors and marketers to
>take steps to prevent handguns from being sold or possessed in their city.
>
>That's actually the law in Chicago. You can't sell or possess a handgun there. I'm
>sure if you didn't know about Chicago's gun-control laws you are screaming something
>about the "Second Amendment." How can Chicago take away their citizens' right to bear
>arms, you ask?
>
>Well, the answer is easy. Chicago isn't infringing on a Constitutional right to bear
>arms because it doesn't exist.
>
>NRA followers are probably frothing at the mouth by now, but stop and think for
>yourself for a change. If the Second Amendment really guaranteed private citizens the
>right to bear arms, don't you think the NRA would have overturned Chicago's
>no-handgun law by now?
>
>Just take a few deep breaths and think about that.
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>If the Second Amendment did guaranty the individuals right to keep and bear arms it
>would easily get the votes needed to repeal it because it would mean everyone could
>legally own missiles with nuclear warheads. The Second Amendment does not limit the
>type of arms. Because they referred to the Militia, it would mean any and all
>military arms.
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>The gun lobby has perpetuated several myths about the Second Amendment that it uses
>to justify its positions - and sell guns. These myths have been used to lull the
>public into apathy and inaction - and to sell guns. Here are some of the most common
>myths and arguments that you can use to disprove them.
>
>MYTH #1: The Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees an individual
>right to own and carry a gun.
>
>FACT: The gun lobby focuses on the second half of the Second Amendment when they
>make this argument. In doing so it misinterprets the meaning of the amendment. The
>Second Amendment is designed to give the states the right to form and maintain a"well
>regulated militia" to provide for the security of the state and as supplement to the
>police. It and is not meant to ensure an individual right to bear arms. The amendment
>means what it says - in its entirety.
>
>The National Guard, created in 1903, is the modern equivalent of an organized state
>militia. The members of the National Guard are provided with arms when called into
>duty and are not required to privately own firearms for service. This view that the
>Second Amendment is a group rather than an individual right has been upheld by the
>United States Supreme Court as well as lower federal courts. In fact, no law
>restricting the ownership of private arms has ever been struck down on Second
>Amendment grounds.
>
>The Supreme Court decided in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, that
>possession of a firearm is not protected by the Second Amendment unless it has "some
>reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated
>militia."
>
>The Supreme Court has stated that today's militia is the National Guard.
>
>That decision, by the Supreme Court, is the law of the land.
>
>We challenge those who claim that the Federal government does not have the right to
>restrict the private ownership of firearms to file a lawsuit against the Federal
>government, on Second Amendment basis, to overthrow the Brady Bill and/or the ban on
>assault guns.
>
>MYTH #2: The Founding Fathers of this nation intended to give every
>individual the right to own firearms.
>
>FACT: The constitution was drafted in 1787 by delegates from the former colonies
>appointed for the purpose. There was much discussion, comments, and disagreements
>about all parts of the constitution, including the second amendment. Like any
>political document , drafting the constitution required compromises between the
>different views of those who were given the task of drafting the document. It had to
>be ratified by the states before going into effect.
>
>The states clearly wanted to maintain their militias. They feared armed rebellions by
>organizations within their state. This had already happened in Massachusetts just one
>year before the convention convened. In 1786, the "Shays" rebellion was put down by
>the state militia. Keeping strong, well regulated state militias was of great
>interest to many delegates.
>
>Recent research by noted historians support the argument that the states which
>permitted slavery greatly feared an armed rebellion by slaves and wanted to be
>prepared to deal with it. It must be kept in mind when reading high-toned
>pronouncements by some leaders of the time that many of the most vocal represented
>"slave" states and were themselves owners of slaves. Their state governments and
>their livelihood depended on maintaining the institution of slavery.
>
>Those who quote Thomas Jefferson should be aware that he was from a "slave" state,
>Virginia, owned slaves, and did not attend the constitution convention.
>
>
>Though certain individuals among our Founding Fathers may have believed in an
>individual right to the ownership of arms, the Second Amendment did not reflect
>this. Once again, although certain individuals among the writers of the constitution
>may have believed in an individual right to own and bear arms, the resulting document
>of the group as a whole did not reflect this view of firearm ownership.
>
>
>MYTH #3: The solution to oppression and totalitarian government is for all
>citizens to own guns.
>
>FACT: The gun lobby often cites the Holocaust, violence in Bosnia, hunger in Somalia,
>and racism in the U.S. as problems that would have been or could be overcome if those
>being oppressed were armed. While guns may add a personal sense of security, the
>realities of war and relative power show that it is impossible for a few armed
>citizens to overthrow an organized army.
>
>In W.W.II, Germany was able to overrun several nations with armed militaries and
>resistance (e.g. Poland and France) before a coalition of nations was able to stop
>and defeat them. Several nations which have restrictions on firearms have not fallen
>into the throes of tyranny (e.g. Japan, Canada, and Britain, Australia).
>
>No legislation regulating the private ownership of firearms has ever been
>struck down on Second Amendment grounds.
>
>Although you hear a lot of rhetoric about second amendment rights from the NRA, they
>know the law and they have enough money to spend on lawyers to know that the Bill of
>Rights does not guaranty the individuals right to possess firearms. If it did the
>NRA would have all regulation struck down on Second Amendment grounds.
>
>Like anything else that is not in the Bill of Rights, owning a gun is only
>legal if there is no law preventing it.
>
>The opinion of anti-regulation people on one side - Supreme Court rulings on the
>other.
>
>Guess who wins?
>
>The Second Amendment is a dead end for anti gun-regulation advocates.
>
>
Albert Isham
>
>georgann wrote:
>
>YES.
>
And the question was; Does the Second Amendment only apply to the states?
P.S. Some gunners think that if there is no special right to have a gun under
the Second Amendment, there is no right to own a gun. How silly! The BoR
doesn't even mention houses, do you think you have no right to own a house?
--
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
"By constantly harping on the theme that the Constitution is under fire, the
NRA incites hatred and violence. While insisting that it stands for law and
order, the NRA foments anarchy and chaos."
Jack Anderson in "Inside the NRA"
georgann
> >YES.
Albert Isham wrote:
> And the question was; Does the Second Amendment only apply to the states?
georgann wrote:
No. Supreme Court has consistently said so.
> P.S. Some gunners think that if there is no special right to have a gun under
> the Second Amendment, there is no right to own a gun. How silly! The BoR
> doesn't even mention houses, do you think you have no right to own a house?
georgann wrote:
No one has a constitutional * right * to a house. I somehow
don't think that was as relevant to the framers as it was to
keep the Republic safe from lunatics with a big-ass idea they
think is better than the three branched, representative govt.
we do have.
Got any more useless comparisons or was that the total wad in
one shot?
Panhead
>
> In article <394CC2C9...@mindspring.com>, georgann says...
> >
> >georgann wrote:
> >
> >YES.
> >
Albert can't read and then asks a false question, since the BOR
is not about State rights, but rather rights that are protected
FOR individuals.
> P.S. Some gunners think that if there is no special right to have a gun under
> the Second Amendment, there is no right to own a gun. How silly!
Indeed it is silly. Smart people (Not liberals or idiots like
Albert mind you) know that the right to keep and bear arms is a
known given, and that the Second merely protects that right that
we all had since day one.
> The BoR
> doesn't even mention houses, do you think you have no right to own a house?
The Constitution DOES give me the right to OWN a house.
It does NOT say I am entitled to one from the Government, or
even to have food and water. (Albert doesn't know the
difference.)
Want them? Get a job and buy, make, or grow it, you lazy
sack-o-shit.
Ed Reppert
""@chen...@mindspring.com wrote:
> No one has a constitutional * right * to a house.
You mention "constitutional right" as if it's somehow different, somehow
better, than just a plain, ordinary "right". Here's a clue: it ain't.
People have rights. Those rights derive from the fact that they are
*people*, not from anything else. Some of those rights are specifically
mentioned in the Constitution, some of them aren't. *All* of them are
protected by the Constitution, at least to some degree, from government
interference. The fact that a specific right is or is not mentioned is
irrelevant.
BTW, the fourth amendment says the people are to be "secure in their
houses" against unreasonable search and seizure. How can we be "secure
in our houses" if we have no right to them?
Government is enjoined by the ninth amendment to be aware that the
people have rights not specifically mentioned in the constitution.
Government at the federal level is enjoined by the tenth amendment to
only those powers specifically granted by the constitution. Government
has ignored those provisions, and will eventually be called to task for
that. By the people.
If the Second Amendment didn't exist, we, the people, would *still* have
the right to keep and bear arms without government interference. No
constitution, no statute, *nothing* can take that right away from us.
georgann
> In article <394CD9F8...@mindspring.com>,
> ""@chen...@mindspring.com wrote:
> > No one has a constitutional * right * to a house.
Ed Reppert wrote:
> You mention "constitutional right" as if it's somehow different, somehow
> better, than just a plain, ordinary "right". Here's a clue: it ain't.
georgann wote:
Here's a bigger clue. You're wrong.
> People have rights. Those rights derive from the fact that they are
> *people*, not from anything else. Some of those rights are specifically
> mentioned in the Constitution, some of them aren't. *All* of them are
> protected by the Constitution, at least to some degree, from government
> interference. The fact that a specific right is or is not mentioned is
> irrelevant.
> BTW, the fourth amendment says the people are to be "secure in their
> houses" against unreasonable search and seizure. How can we be "secure
> in our houses" if we have no right to them?
> Government is enjoined by the ninth amendment to be aware that the
> people have rights not specifically mentioned in the constitution.
> Government at the federal level is enjoined by the tenth amendment to
> only those powers specifically granted by the constitution. Government
> has ignored those provisions, and will eventually be called to task for
> that. By the people.
> If the Second Amendment didn't exist, we, the people, would *still* have
> the right to keep and bear arms without government interference. No
> constitution, no statute, *nothing* can take that right away from us.
georgann wrote:
Fine. I'll keep this right in writing thank you very much.
Without the words on paper, some of the fringe liberals would
have that "right" infringed and removed faster than you can
say Chuckie Schumer.
Ed Reppert
""@chen...@mindspring.com wrote:
> Here's a bigger clue. You're wrong.
No, I'm not. And if you'd read what I wrote, instead of just reacting to
it, you'd realize that.
The answer to the question posed in the subject of this thread is "no".
That doesn't mean the right to own a gun doesn't exist, and it doesn't
mean the government can infringe that right any way it wants. It means
just what it says: the existence of the RKBA has nothing to do with the
Second Amendment.
Eric Pinnell
wrote:
>As for the second amendment.
>
>The U.S. Conference of Mayors decided not to file a joint lawsuit against the
>firearms industry in an effort to reduce gun violence in the cities. The decision
>instead was to set up a task force with the gun makers to find a solution to the
>problem. However, this doesn't mean that some cities, which don't want to wait years
>for a task force recommendation, won't sue on their own. Chicago has been seriously
>considering doing just that. Officials there want gun distributors and marketers to
>take steps to prevent handguns from being sold or possessed in their city.
This is due to fear that the mayors will be prosecuted for
conspiracy charges under 18 USC 241. Guess what? They're gonna be
prosecuted ANYWAY.
>That's actually the law in Chicago. You can't sell or possess a handgun there. I'm
>sure if you didn't know about Chicago's gun-control laws you are screaming something
>about the "Second Amendment." How can Chicago take away their citizens' right to bear
>arms, you ask?
>
>Well, the answer is easy. Chicago isn't infringing on a Constitutional right to bear
>arms because it doesn't exist.
>
>NRA followers are probably frothing at the mouth by now, but stop and think for
>yourself for a change. If the Second Amendment really guaranteed private citizens the
>right to bear arms, don't you think the NRA would have overturned Chicago's
>no-handgun law by now?
>
>Just take a few deep breaths and think about that.
We have. If the individual rights doctrine is upheld, then gun
control goes away. Which means the need for the NRA goes away. If
the NRA can't lobby to protect your rights, then why would anyone send
in a contribution?
>
>If the Second Amendment did guaranty the individuals right to keep and bear arms it
>would easily get the votes needed to repeal it because it would mean everyone could
>legally own missiles with nuclear warheads. The Second Amendment does not limit the
>type of arms. Because they referred to the Militia, it would mean any and all
>military arms.
Strictly speaking, this is wrong. The federalists wanted the
people to be armed to act in a militia. The anti-federalists wanted
the people to be armed to resist tyranny.
In either case, the only justification for banning an arm is that
it would insufficiently powerful or deadly to fight a war or to fight
the government.
And since the intend of the anti federalist view is to resist a
tyrannical government, then it seems ludicrous to allow that
government to restrict what arms can be owned.
>The Supreme Court decided in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, that
>possession of a firearm is not protected by the Second Amendment unless it has "some
>reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated
>militia."
Incorrect. They said that absent any evidence showing how a sawed
off shotgun preserved a well regulated militia, they could not say
whether or not the arm is protected.
Allen James
<rgde...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The Second Amendment
>
> Does It Give You The Right To Own A Gun?
Nope. It DOES, however, recognize that right.
Of course, I know you are incapable of appreciating either the
difference between the two or the mere idea of individual rights,
so.....
Not a Republican
news:394CD9F8...@mindspring.com...
> > >georgann wrote:
> > >YES.
>
> Albert Isham wrote:
states?
>
> No. Supreme Court has consistently said so.
I'm not sure that's even the right question. The Second Amendment
does indeed apply to the federal government. Of that there is no
question. No court has attempted to indicate otherwise, and for good
reason.
The Second Amendment, however, should not apply to the States at all,
except under the modern Court 'revelation' called Selective
Incorporation, which itself is utterly unconstitutional. If
anti-gunners would realize that, they would understand that the
answer to their problems is not a tortured re-definition of the
Constitution, but an understanding of it. Because without
Incorporation, states and municipalities are free from federal
interference to regulate gun ownership as they see fit.
Posit: If the presence of guns is a threat to public safety and the
cause of gun violence, one need only camp out at the most massive
concentrations of firearms and await the violence. We should expect
to read of massacres at gun shows and pistol ranges nearly every day.
--
nar
georgann
> > > >georgann wrote:
> > > >YES.
> > Albert Isham wrote:
> > > And the question was; Does the Second Amendment only apply to the
> states?
> > georgann wrote:
> > No. Supreme Court has consistently said so.
Not a Republican wrote:
> I'm not sure that's even the right question. The Second Amendment
> does indeed apply to the federal government. Of that there is no
> question. No court has attempted to indicate otherwise, and for good
> reason.
Georgann:
I was attempting to point out that when challenged on
individual vs militia "right" the SC has come down on the side
of individual ownership. I was not really talking about states
in this matter at all.
> The Second Amendment, however, should not apply to the States at all,
> except under the modern Court 'revelation' called Selective
> Incorporation, which itself is utterly unconstitutional. If
> anti-gunners would realize that, they would understand that the
> answer to their problems is not a tortured re-definition of the
> Constitution, but an understanding of it. Because without
> Incorporation, states and municipalities are free from federal
> interference to regulate gun ownership as they see fit.
>
> Posit: If the presence of guns is a threat to public safety and the
> cause of gun violence, one need only camp out at the most massive
> concentrations of firearms and await the violence. We should expect
> to read of massacres at gun shows and pistol ranges nearly every day.
> --
> nar
georgann wrote:
To your last comment, you could also go to the cities where
guns are supposedly banned (like NYC) and simply wait to be
accosted by a criminal with one. In Australia where most guns
are banned and few individuals are licensed to own firearms,
home invasions by armed thugs is rampant. Crime overall has
increased since their bans on firearms.
Not a Republican
news:39528826...@news.alt.net...
> The Second Amendment
>
> Does It Give You The Right To Own A Gun?
----
>
> The Second Amendment to the Constitution states, "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."
>
> At first glance, this provision seems to guarantee all citizens the
> and bear" the weapon of their choice. However, a careful look at
the legal and
> historical background of the Second Amendment proves otherwise.
Unlike the First
> Amendment, the Second Amendment begins with a qualifying statement
that limits the
> scope of the rest of the amendment. The Second Amendment contains
an expression of
> the purpose of the right: "A well regulated militia, being
necessary to the security
> of a free state..."
>
of purpose
> serving to limit the scope of the rights guaranteed.
Your 'analysis' is flawed from the start, because your initial
presumption, upon which the rest is based, is flawed. None of the
amendments known collectively as the Bill of Rights was meant to
guarantee rights. Setting the issue of Incorporation aside, at the
time the Bill was written, there was no intent to guarantee any
rights, but to proscribe the federal government from interfering with
certain specific rights already held by the people, with the balance
of those authorities not specifically given to the federal government
reserved to the States and the people, respectively.
>Although Pro-gun groups contend
> that the authors of the Constitution intended the Second Amendment
to protect the
> possession of arms, even absent a connection with the militia,
judicial precedents
> have proved that the courts feel otherwise. Throughout the history
of our nation, the
> United States Supreme Court and lower federal courts have
consistently held that the
> Second Amendment right to bear arms is related to "a well-regulated
militia."
The meaning of the second amendment is clear to all but the willfully
ignorant: Because the security of liberty (should the federal
government become despotic and attempt to abridge freedoms) requires
that people be ready with the most basic arms of defense, the
authority to limit the people's right to keep and bear those arms
shall be proscribed from the federal government.
In 1789, the concern that the newly-empowered federal government
(under the new Constitution) might become despotic and abridge
liberty was very, very real. The States demanded that an amendment
be added to that Constitution so that the people could not be
stripped of their most basic means of personal protection by such a
government, because having been stripped of their right to arms, the
remainder of their liberties could soon follow without recourse.
Original intent is the only one that matters.
--
nar
Steve Krulick
>
> rgde...@yahoo.com (Roger Denney) wrote:
>
> I have to disagree with you, strongly.
> FIRST, if the government is anyway involved whatsover in the ownership
> of citizens to own and carry guns, its implicitly "infringement".
> Thus, for example, a national guard is an "infringement", because the
> government regulates the national guard.
>
> If on the other hand the citizens self-regulate themselves, then its
> impossible for the government to infringe in anyway.
>
> In otherwords, the government infringes when its regulates in any way,
> shape or form, but it does not infringe when the people regulate
> themselves.
>
> Just as the three branches of government are part of the system of
> "checks and balances", a "citizen's militia" composed of citizens not
> under the direct control of the government form a 4th leg of a system
> of "checks and balances".
>
> SECOND, The historical record proves all of the above to be true,
> because it reflects the thinking by our founding fathers of the
> correct interpretation of the Second Admendment:
Nonsense. An armed populace fantasy was never encoded into the
constitution, certainly not as any 4th branch of checks and balances. No
govt establishes, or indeed CAN establish, an extra-legal civil right to
pose a constant threat to its very existence. There is no independent
"citizen's militia" not under the law; that would be a private army or a
rebellious insurrection, which the constitution does not sanction. The
militia was to be under STATE control, with state-appointed officers,
and the state could require attendance and could register the militiaman
and his weapons. And the federal govt could federalize that militia to
put down insurrections and repel invaders. Try as you may, the
constitution and the courts do not sanction an extra-legal right to take
up arms against the govt; that is a pre-constitutional right, "an appeal
to Heaven," as Jefferson called it, a moral justification to rebellion,
not a civil right. If you do so and lose, as in Shays Rebellion and the
Whiskey Rebellion, you will be treated as traitors; if you do so and
win, as the Continental Congress and Army did, you will be hailed as
Founding Fathers.
> (1) 4TH LEG OF "CHECKS AND BALANCES" AND INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO BE ARMED
>
> "No man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason
> for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last
> resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." --
> Thomas Jefferson, June 1776
Spoken by a revolutionary fighting tyranny. This is the same guy who
enforced the Alien and Sedition Acts once in power. This was not encoded
into the precise text of the 2nd Amen.
>
> (2) MORE OF THE SAME
[snip quotes]
These quotes are routinely posted again and again on the same group of
sites, and act like a big echo chamber. Three weeks ago I posted a
response to a nearly identical set of quotes; although some are
different, most are the same, and the same point I made then holds for
these. Since then I've already found the original sources for some of
these, and they show that they've been cut up and taken out of context,
sometimes to imply the opposite of what they were meant to say. To see
some proof, go to:
http://www.potomac-inc.org/emerappi.html
Here's my repost; I've stripped the lead quote characters, so my quotes
follow the dead guys'. I've added some parenthetical statements which is
new material, and even added some more quotes than WH used:
Subject: Re: There is certainly a right to bear arms.
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 21:39:26 -0400
From: Steve Krulick <kry...@ulster.net> Organization:
Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Newsgroups:
talk.politics.misc, alt.society.liberalism, alt.politics.usa.republican,
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
pengu...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Here's how it breaks down:
> Quotes from those most influential in writing the Second Amendment...
> after all, who can you rely on if not the very people who wrote the thing?
> Not a one of them said "...hey, let's have only the government hold firearms."
I also would like to know what these people --
living in 18th Century America, a country of a couple million, mostly
rural/agricultural, surrounded by possibly hostile aboriginals, with the
threat of invasion possible (as the War of 1812 confirmed), who couldn't
go to Safeway to pick up their turkey dinner, who didn't have police a
phonecall and V-8 Crown Victoria's drive away, and for whom arms meant
single-shot, black powder, muzzle-loading, flintlock rifles the length
of a man's height --
I'd also like to know what they thought about the care and maintenance
of slaves, and why women were not qualified to vote, and whether the
only good Indian was a dead Indian, and whether bloodletting was good
for fevers, because, you know, their opinions automatically would be of
great relevance in helping us make decisions in our world today,
because, after all, they were our founding fathers and everything they
had to say is easily applicable to any side of any argument we wish to
make, if only we know how to selectively take their quotes out of
context and ignore that it was the world of 200 bleeping years ago that
they were dealing with.
> Now - on to the shaming of those who think that only the government
> should own firearms (references included for those who desire them):
``````````````````````````````````
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people
always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to
use them." (Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental
Congress, initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of
the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights.)
This would suggest that EVERY person in America (although, back then
slaves and women were not persons) be forced to own and carry a gun
every minute of the day and have mandatory gun education classes in
school.
"The great object is that every man be armed . . . Everyone who is able
may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the
ratification of the Constitution.)
Not to have a gun in 1780s America might have been a disadvantage,
although, until Colt came along and really advertised the hell out of
'em, having guns didn't seem to be such an obsession in the first 50
years of our Republic. I may be wrong, but I think the proportion of
guns to people today in America is greater than it was in, say, 1800.
Perhaps someone can provide accurate numbers here. (It turns out that
Henry was debating whether militia arms should be provided by the feds
or states, or else there'd be two sets of arms to deal with and the
expense thereof, the cheapskate.)
"The advantage of being armed . . . the Americans possess over the
people of all other nations . . . Notwithstanding the military
establishments in the several Kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as
far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to
trust the people with arms." (James Madison, author of the Bill of
Rights, Federalist Paper No. 46.)
Some governments were also afraid to trust the people with kingless
republican government. (I checked out this quote and it is abused
mercilessly. To see it in context go to the above URL)
"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry
ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect
the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning
may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the
probable one in which it was passed."-Thomas Jefferson, letter to
William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p322
So when Jefferson said "All men are created equal..." we're supposed to
conform to the meaning he had when it was written and if blacks or women
weren't "men" then let's take away all those rights we've mistakenly
given them since.
"The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the
people at large or considered as individuals...It establishes some
rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no
majority has a right to deprive them of."-Albert Gallatin of the New
York Historical Society, October 7, 1789
"Some rights" of the individual are unalienable? Which ones? I don't see
any mention of arms here.
"...the people have a right to keep and bear arms." -Patrick Henry and
George Mason, Elliot, Debates at 185
Where's the first part of the sentence? That's like saying "...the right
of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." without
including the first part of the 2nd Amendment. Oh, silly me. Nobody
would ever do that!
"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -Thomas Jefferson,
Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334
Free man, huh? Sorry, 2nd Amen sisters, give back them guns.
"The Constitution shall never be construed...to prevent the people of
the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own
arms." -Samuel Adams, Debates & Proceedings in the Convention of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87.
Those ...s concern me. Not preventing people from keeping doesn't here
preclude setting any number of reasonable limitations, restrictions,
conditions.
"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in
full possession of them."-Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elliot, Debates at 646
Same as previous. Possession doesn't preclude regulation or
registration.
"A free people ought...to be armed..."-George Washington, speech of
January 7, 1790 in the Boston Independent Chronicle, January 14, 1790
And George Washington...said...lots of contradictory things. If I lived
in 1790, I'd probably have said the same exact thing.
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they
are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America
cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the
people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of
regular troops..."-Noah Webster, "An Examination into the Leading
Principles of the Federal Constitution" (1787) in Pamphlets on the
Constitution of the United States (P. Ford, 1888)
Regular troops were looked on as scum and brigands; many probably were
in 1790. I have much greater respect for today's American troops. Don't
you? Besides, you and what (citizen militia) army is going to take on
the full might of the US military? Got a tactical nuclear cannon we
aren't aware of?
"To disarm the people (is) the best and most effectual way to enslave
them..." -George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380
I thought the best way was to go over to Africa, round up a lot of black
people, put them in chains, cram them into ships so that a majority of
them die, bring them to America, and then sell them to aristocratic
Virginia hypocrites who prattle about the unalienable rights of men.
"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the
citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the
people with arms." -James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244
Hmmm. The peasants of France seemed to do a pretty good job storming the
Bastille with pitchforks and shovels, at least in all the "Tale of Two
Cities" movies I've seen. (Check the URL for context)
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be
properly armed." -Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8
To what end? Where's the context? Besides, he's talking about "the
people at large" here. Where's the little guy?
"The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might
have a gun." -Patrick Henry, 3 Elliott, Debates at 386
(This was already quoted before.) Able, as in able-bodied,
property-owning, white males of service age. As in militia service. As
in the 2nd Amen gives every one of these lucky stiffs the right to be
part of a well-regulated state militia. Bring your own kit, if you are
one of the minority of Americans who own one, or borrow it from the
armory.
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I
advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives
boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the
ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp
no character on the mind. Let your fun therefore be the constant
companion of your walks. -Thomas Jefferson, Encyclopedia of T.
Jefferson, 318 (Foley, Ed., reissued 1967)
I am sure if Tommy boy had access to a Jetski or a hang-glider, he'd be
advising we enjoy those instead. He'd also advise getting it on with
your mistress/slave, if you were wealthy enough to afford one.
"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the
other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the
plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property.
The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of
arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not
lay them aside...Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world
deprived of the use of them..." -Thomas Paine, I Writings of Thomas
Paine at 56 (1894)
So, if I read this right, Paine is recommending making the entire world
destitute of arms. Right on!
"Arms in the hands of citizens (may) be used at individual
discretion...in private self-defense..."John Adams, A Defense of the
Constitutions of the Government of the USA, 471 (1788)
So, if you got'em, smoke 'em? Nothing here to prevent sensible
regulation, limitations, conditions. (This may be the worst abuse of
selective out-of-context use. Here's a fuller reading of this bit:
"[T]he militia then must all obey the sovereign majority, or divide, and
part follow the majority, and part the minority. This last case is civil
war; but until it comes to this, the whole militia may be employed by
the majority in any degree of tyranny and oppression over the minority.
The constitution furnishes no resource or remedy; nothing affords a
chance of relief but rebellion and civil war: if this terminates in
favor of the minority, they will terrorize in their turns, exasperated
by revenge, in addition to ambition and avarice; if the majority
prevail, their domination becomes more cruel, and soon ends in one
despot. It must be made a sacred maxim, that the militia obey the
executive power, which represents the whole people in the execution of
laws. ***To suppose arms in the hands of the citizens , to be used at
individual discretion, except in private self defense , or by partial
orders of towns, counties, or districts of a state, is to demolish every
constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed
by no manโ is a dissolution of the government.*** The fundamental law of
the militia is, that it be created, directed, and commanded by the laws,
and ever for the support of the laws."
It means just about the opposite of what is implied by the selective
quoting!)
"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people
themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." -Richard
Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169
So a militia is the people. Who else would they be... the forest
creatures? Hey, then the 2nd Amen would say the "right to arm bears
shall not be infringed."
You, by yourself, Sparky, are not THE PEOPLE. Or are you a militia unto
yourself? If so, I guess bran will keep you well-regulated.
"What, sir, is the use of the militia? It is to prevent the
establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty." -Rep. Elbridge
Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress at 750- (August 17, 1789)
Well, too late, we've got a standing army. Would you feel safer without
one? I guess the original purpose of the militia's existence, by Gerry's
definition (he of the notorious bane of liberty, the Gerrymander),
having failed, any reason to need guns around to support that
non-necessary militia seems moot.
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a
few public officials." =George Mason, 3 Elliott, Debates at 425-426
So the whole people can keep their arms in the armory until they need
them, and don't let those few public officials have the keys.
(Here's the bigger picture; the context of "who are the militia?" was
the composition of the militia, not the personal rights of militia men:
Mr. GEORGE MASON. Mr. Chairman, a worthy member has asked who are the
militia , if they be not the people of this country, and if we are not
to be protected from the fate of the Germans, Prussians, &c., by our
representation? I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the
whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be
the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no
alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all
classes, high and low, and rich and poor; but they may be confined to
the lower and middle classes of the people, granting exclusion to the
higher classes of the people. If we should ever see that day, the most
ignominious punishments and heavy fines may be expected. Under the
present government, all ranks of people are subject to militia duty.
Under such a full and equal representation as ours, there can be no
ignominious punishment inflicted. But under this national, or rather
consolidated government, the case will be different. The representation
being so small and inadequate, they will have no fellow-feeling for the
people. They may discriminate people in their own predicament, and
exempt from duty all the officers and lowest creatures of the national
government. If there were a more particular definition of their powers,
and a clause exempting the militia from martial law except when in
actual service, and from fines and punishments of an unusual nature,
then we might expect that the militia would be what they are. But, if
this be not the case, we cannot say how long all classes of people will
be included in the militia. There will not be the same reason to expect
it, because the government will be administered by different people. We
know what they are now, but know not how soon they may be altered.")
"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed.
A well regulated militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is
the best and most natural defense of a free country..." -James Madison,
I Annals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789)
There're those pesky ...s again; WHAT ARE YOU LEAVING OUT? And what part
of well-regulated don't you understand?
Anyway, thanks to the magic of Woody Allen, I happen to have James
Madison right here. So... so, here, just let me, I mean, all right.
Come over here... a second.
(I here proceed to pull James Madison from behind the curtain)
Me: Tell him, Jimbo!
Madison: I heard what you were saying. You know nothing of my work. You
mean my whole fallacy is wrong. How you ever got to teach a course in
anything is totally amazing.
Me: (To the camera) Boy, if life were only like this!
>
> FOURTH, recent rulings in court are beginning to side with the
> citizens. However, note that any decision by the courts that supresses
> the personal possession of firearms is of itself an infringment by the
> government.
One judge in one court who quotes pseduoscholars rather than 60 years of
court decisions is hardly a trend. Since the Cummings ruling in Emerson,
FIVE courts of appeals have essentially rejected Cummings' premise. Any
decision of the courts that interprets the constitution, unless
overturned by a higher court, is not an infringement if it rules so. And
the courts have ruled -- the Supreme Court and EVERY circuit -- that
personal possession of firearms, independent of the "reasonable
relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated
militia" is not a protected absolute individual right. Get used to it.
> In otherwords, The Constitution and its Admendments are even higher
> than the courts in insuring the rights of the citizens, as well as the
> powers of the government. For example, could the courts rule against
> the powers of the government guaranteed in the Constitution? It would
> be absurd for the Supreme Court to say Congress cannot pass a law that
> meets Constitution protection. It just as absurd for the courts to
> tell citizens they cannot carry guns.
The courts' powers are GIVEN by that Constitution, and that includes
interpreting the Constitution and the laws. The courts could rule that a
specific law EXCEEDED the powers enumerated by the Constitution. The
courts are not telling citizens they cannot carry guns; they are saying
that 1) the states and localities can limit, restrict, regulate or even
prohibit the carrying of guns 2) the federal govt can create classes of
weapons that can't be owned or the classes of people who may be
prohibited from owning or using them, and ultimately, in interpreting
the 2nd Amen 3) that there is no absolute individual right to "keep and
bear arms" (which term meant in 1789 "to serve as a soldier in a militia
or army, which can be proven by Madison's own original draft of the
amendment, which gave conscientious objector status to men who objected
to "bearing arms: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall
not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the
best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of
bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."
In the last clause of this version (the conscientious objector
provision), Madison clearly used the phrase "bearing arms" to refer
solely to the possession of weapons for military use. It is implausible
to contend, as the Cummings District Court implicitly does, that
virtually the same phrase "bear arms" should have a different, much
broader meaning elsewhere in the very same sentence. (see
http://www.potomac-inc.org/yass.html for amicus brief on this concept,
also http://www.potomac-inc.org/emerappa.html for hundreds of examples
of what the founders MEANT by the term "bear arms."
>
> You are wrong about its intended purpose as stated by our founding
> fathers themselves (in my quotes). Where are yours? Your thought is
> opinion, not fact.
The debates and process of the amendment writing prove that the purpose
was primarily a practical compromise to get anti-federalist states to
ratify the constitution by appeasing their fear that they would cede
their control of the state militias to the federal govt. There is no
discussion about personal gun ownership, and little about the militia
counterbalancing the federal army, and none about individuals acting on
their own to keep check on the tyrannical feds. As Adams, in context,
says:
"To suppose arms in the hands of the citizens, to be used at individual
discretion, except in private self defense, or by partial orders of
towns, counties, or districts of a state, is to demolish every
constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed
by no man โ is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of
the militia is, that it be created, directed, and commanded by the laws,
and ever for the support of the laws."
> >
> > The First Amendment, on the other hand, contains no such statement of purpose
> >serving to limit the scope of the rights guaranteed. Although Pro-gun groups contend
> >that the authors of the Constitution intended the Second Amendment to protect the
> >possession of arms, even absent a connection with the militia, judicial precedents
> >have proved that the courts feel otherwise. Throughout the history of our nation, the
> >United States Supreme Court and lower federal courts have consistently held that the
> >Second Amendment right to bear arms is related to "a well-regulated militia."
>
> Where is a case that has outright denied all citizens the rights to
> bear arms? Where is your quotes? Again, just your opinion.
That's a misstatement of the previous quote and the courts. There is no
such case. The courts have interpreted the 2nd Amen, consistently, to
limit the power of the federal govt to infringe on the ability of the
states to have the right to organize and appoint officers to state
militias, and gives qualifying citizens within the states the rights to
"keep and bear arms" (which means to serve) in those state militias.
That's all. It's a narrow -- purposely narrow -- amendment that has
nothing to do with self-defense, armed populace fantasies, hunting,
sports, or anything but the way a militia is balanced between state and
federal controls and functions, based on a belief by some that a militia
system was better than a standing army. If it were meant to have broader
meaning or inclusion, it could have been written so. But it wasn't --
precisely to focus on the limited, military nature of its scope.
>
> >
> >Article I, Section 8 authorizes Congress:
> >
> >"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 officers,
> >and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by
> >Congress."
>
> This does not run contrary to a "citizen's militia". See my quotes. In
> fact the citizen militia is there to keep the government's military in
> check.
Your "citizen militia" is a myth. The militia that the 2nd Amen refers
to is the state militias, which the courts have consistently ruled today
is the National Guard. There is no constitutional authority for a
"citizen's militia" nor can there be; to even exist at all, without
loyalty to the law or recognition of the sovereignty of the govt the
constitution establishes, is to desire to live as a pre-constitutional,
revolutionary band of individual sovereigns living in a state of nature.
That threat the govt has no right or reason to establish, nor any reason
to sanction. In 1794, Washington invoked the 2nd Amen militia to put
down just such a "citizen militia" during the Whiskey Rebellion. That's
what your citizen militia is.
True, this seem absurd today, but in 1776, it was not so
> absurd, since the level of "fire power" and "manpower" in 1776 could
> easily overwhelm a government that used its military against its
> citizens for no other cause than to supress the rights guaranteed to
> them by the Constitution.
>
> >
> >The absolutist view of the Second Amendment, argued by some opponents of regulation
> >of firearms, has not been sustained by a single U.S. Supreme Court or lower court
> >decision in our nation's history, while a series of Supreme Court and lower federal
> >court decisions has uniformly upheld regulation of private arms. No legislation
> >regulating the private ownership of firearms has ever been struck down on Second
> >Amendment grounds
>
> Any rulings by the Courts contrary to the rights of the citizens to
> own and bear arms are unconstitutional.
The courts interpret the constitution; what is constitutional is
precisely what the courts SAY is constitutional, until overturned or
amended. The courts have been so consistent that no challenge to the 2nd
Amen has gone to the Supreme Court since 1939. Who should we have make
the rulings... YOU?
> In fact, the 2nd Admendment
> actually garantees the rights of citizens to destroy its government if
> it by any means attempts to destroy citizen's rights including the
> right to bear arms.
Of everything you've said, it was this lunacy that stopped me in my
tracks and made me decide to write a reply to the whole loopy posting of
yours. WHERE is there any guarantee in the 2nd Amen, much less the
entire Constitution, that citizens have a RIGHT to destroy the govt by
any means? No constitution can incorporate a right to self-destruction
in itself. Are you referring to the Article that spells out how to AMEND
the constitution? I doubt it. This very statement of yours undermines
any slim credibility you had with any but similarly daft
proto-insurrectionists. The only "right" to destroy a govt is
Jefferson's "appeal to Heaven," and that can't be granted as a civil
right by the govt that would be destroyed by it.
The rest of your opinions are of no interest to me. If you are like
every other hoplophile to date, you will bring up more out-of-context
quotes that are wrapped with the opinions of pseudoscholars to claim
every outrageous myth you believe is fact. When you plainly confront the
court rulings and the 2nd Amen in their straightforward entirety, then I
might bother to waste any more time dealing with your fantasy construct.
--------------------------
"Freedom is participation
in power." (Cicero)
--------------------------
Steve Krulick
>
> > Georgann:
> I was attempting to point out that when challenged on
> individual vs militia "right" the SC has come down on the side
> of individual ownership. I was not really talking about states
> in this matter at all.
>
ALL the Circuits and Courts of Appeals, that there is no absolute
individual right to possesses firearms independent of the "reasonable
relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated
In just the 4th Circuit alone: In Love v. Peppersack, 47 F.3d 120 (4th
Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 813 (1995), an applicant for the purchase
of a handgun filed a 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 action against police officers
involved in the denial of her application alleging, among other things,
that her right "to keep and bear" a handgun had been violated. Like the
Emerson/Cummings trial, the applicant cited a number of law review
articles in support of her Second Amendment claim. After noting the
Second Amendment did not apply to the states, the court stated the
Amendment did not "confer an absolute individual right to bear any type
of firearm." Referring to Miller, the court stated that: "Since then,
the lower federal courts have uniformly held that the Second Amendment
preserves a collective, rather than individual, right." Ultimately, the
Fourth Circuit disposed of the Second Amendment challenge by recognizing
that "courts have consistently held that the Second Amendment only
confers a collective right of keeping and bearing arms which must bear a
'reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well
regulated militia.'"
I have cited nearly a dozen major courts decisions on these NGs and they
say the same thing.
> georgann wrote:
> To your last comment, you could also go to the cities where
> guns are supposedly banned (like NYC) and simply wait to be
> accosted by a criminal with one.
I lived in NYC for decades, and still go there regularly for business; I
have never been accosted by a criminal, with or without a gun. Anytime
of day or night, in neighborhoods of every ethnicity, in Central Park or
the subways, alone or in groups. I'm tired of waiting! I've also never
been called "whitey," "kike" or any other epithet. Am I missing
something, or am I just walking around in a protective karma bubble?
----------------------------
"reasonable relationship to
the preservation or
efficiency of a
well regulated militia."
----------------------------
georgann
> > I was attempting to point out that when challenged on
> > individual vs militia "right" the SC has come down on the side
> > of individual ownership. I was not really talking about states
> > in this matter at all.
Steve Krulick wrote:
> Never! The Supreme Court has consistently held, since 1939, and so have
> ALL the Circuits and Courts of Appeals, that there is no absolute
> individual right to possesses firearms independent of the "reasonable
> relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated
> militia." That's the law; get used to it.
georgann:
You're wrong. The SC has consistently held that the reference
to "a well regulated militia" is not interpreted as a formal
army etc. They find.... I SAID FIND on the side of the
individual right. They don't go handing out the trash you just
screwed up and regurgitated. If you say it once again I'm
gonna demand a serious cite. And it won't be pleasant. Your
say so, dearie, ain't good enough.
> In just the 4th Circuit alone: In Love v. Peppersack, 47 F.3d 120 (4th
> Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 813 (1995), an applicant for the purchase
> of a handgun filed a 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 action against police officers
> involved in the denial of her application alleging, among other things,
> that her right "to keep and bear" a handgun had been violated. Like the
> Emerson/Cummings trial, the applicant cited a number of law review
> articles in support of her Second Amendment claim. After noting the
> Second Amendment did not apply to the states, the court stated the
> Amendment did not "confer an absolute individual right to bear any type
> of firearm." Referring to Miller, the court stated that: "Since then,
> the lower federal courts have uniformly held that the Second Amendment
> preserves a collective, rather than individual, right." Ultimately, the
> Fourth Circuit disposed of the Second Amendment challenge by recognizing
> that "courts have consistently held that the Second Amendment only
> confers a collective right of keeping and bearing arms which must bear a
> 'reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well
> regulated militia.'"
> I have cited nearly a dozen major courts decisions on these NGs and they
> say the same thing.
georgann:
So what. That only shows your cites and these cases have no
"teeth". If Chuckie Schumer and Handgun Control Inc. has any
grounds viv a vis the cases you think you have, then they
would be making better headway then they are. They aren't.
The liberalisimos have thus resorted to tort law to try to
take away our ability to own firearms since they can't get
anywhere taking away our right to bear arms.
> > georgann wrote:
> > To your last comment, you could also go to the cities where
> > guns are supposedly banned (like NYC) and simply wait to be
> > accosted by a criminal with one.
> I lived in NYC for decades, and still go there regularly for business; I
> have never been accosted by a criminal, with or without a gun. Anytime
> of day or night, in neighborhoods of every ethnicity, in Central Park or
> the subways, alone or in groups. I'm tired of waiting! I've also never
> been called "whitey," "kike" or any other epithet. Am I missing
> something, or am I just walking around in a protective karma bubble?
georgann wrote:
That's very interesting. My husband lived in NYC for 4 years
and had 6 (COUNT THEM SIX) major encounters with criminals
there. In each case if he had NOT produced an "illegal"
handgun he may well have died. One was where the goons stopped
their car up in front of his late one night inside the tunnel
and started walking back towards his car. He knew it was a
hijack / robbery / killing about to happen so he laid his 45
auto on the top of the open door and warned them not to come
any closer. (Fair minded fellow my husband.) They back peddled
fast, got into their car and sped away. Another was in Central
Park. A punk kid pulled a knife on him. When he raised his
handgun to the level of the punk's face the jerk said "Hey you
can't do that. That's illegal".
I suggest you go back to bed now. More dreams of wonderland
await you.
Jim Patrick
>Never! The Supreme Court has consistently held, since 1939, and so have
>ALL the Circuits and Courts of Appeals, that there is no absolute
>individual right to possesses firearms independent of the "reasonable
>relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated
>militia." That's the law; get used to it.
"You're misreading the 1939 Miller case." --- Harold R. DeMoss Jr.
Jim Patrick
___________________________________________________
"A right delayed is a right denied" - Martin Luther King Jr.
ยฏยฏยฏยฏยฏยฏยฏยฏยฏยฏยฏยฏยฏยฏยฏยฏยฏยฏยฏยฏยฏยฏยฏยฏยฏยฏยฏยฏยฏยฏยฏยฏยฏยฏยฏยฏยฏยฏยฏยฏยฏยฏยฏยฏยฏยฏยฏยฏยฏยฏยฏ
Jim Patrick
>One judge in one court who quotes pseduoscholars rather than 60 years of
>court decisions is hardly a trend. Since the Cummings ruling in Emerson,
>FIVE courts of appeals have essentially rejected Cummings' premise. Any
>decision of the courts that interprets the constitution, unless
>overturned by a higher court, is not an infringement if it rules so. And
>the courts have ruled -- the Supreme Court and EVERY circuit -- that
>personal possession of firearms, independent of the "reasonable
>relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated
>militia" is not a protected absolute individual right. Get used to it.
"You're misreading the 1939 Miller case." --- Harold R. DeMoss
Michael Dix
>
> georgann wrote:
> >
> > > Georgann:
> > I was attempting to point out that when challenged on
> > individual vs militia "right" the SC has come down on the side
> > of individual ownership. I was not really talking about states
> > in this matter at all.
> >
This statement would be more meaningful if the Supreme Court had
ruled on any Second Amendment cases since US v. Miller, and if
they had ruled as you suggest in Miller.
> and so have
> ALL the Circuits and Courts of Appeals, that there is no absolute
> individual right to possesses firearms independent of the "reasonable
> relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated
> militia." That's the law; get used to it.
>
> In just the 4th Circuit alone: In Love v. Peppersack, 47 F.3d 120 (4th
> Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 813 (1995), an applicant for the purchase
> of a handgun filed a 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 action against police officers
> involved in the denial of her application alleging, among other things,
> that her right "to keep and bear" a handgun had been violated.
Her rap sheet showed four arrests for taking her clothes off for money.
No convictions showed up, and of course these were all misdemeanors,
not felonies.
This shows how the police can abuse their discretion if they are in
charge of deciding who can and cannot be armed. I think it's logical
for a stripper to have the means of self-defense, even if the police
do not.
> Like the
> Emerson/Cummings trial, the applicant cited a number of law review
> articles in support of her Second Amendment claim. After noting the
> Second Amendment did not apply to the states, the court stated the
> Amendment did not "confer an absolute individual right to bear any type
> of firearm."
Two of three judges agreed to this, not Luttig.
> Referring to Miller, the court stated that: "Since then,
> the lower federal courts have uniformly held that the Second Amendment
> preserves a collective, rather than individual, right." Ultimately, the
> Fourth Circuit disposed of the Second Amendment challenge by recognizing
> that "courts have consistently held that the Second Amendment only
> confers a collective right of keeping and bearing arms which must bear a
> 'reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well
> regulated militia.'"
>
> I have cited nearly a dozen major courts decisions on these NGs and they
> say the same thing.
>
In GONG LUM v. RICE, 275 U.S. 78 (1927), the Supreme Court, relying on
its decision in Plessy v. Ferguson, agreed with a high school district
in Mississippi that Chinese people were colored, and had to go to
the colored school, and not the school that the white kids got to
go to.
Fortunately, the NAACP did not accept your advice, "That's the law;
get used to it," else they'd be riding on the back of the bus to
this day.
> > georgann wrote:
> > To your last comment, you could also go to the cities where
> > guns are supposedly banned (like NYC) and simply wait to be
> > accosted by a criminal with one.
>
> I lived in NYC for decades, and still go there regularly for business; I
> have never been accosted by a criminal, with or without a gun. Anytime
> of day or night, in neighborhoods of every ethnicity, in Central Park or
> the subways, alone or in groups. I'm tired of waiting! I've also never
> been called "whitey," "kike" or any other epithet. Am I missing
> something, or am I just walking around in a protective karma bubble?
>
> ----------------------------
> "reasonable relationship to
> the preservation or
> efficiency of a
> well regulated militia."
> ----------------------------
The Miller court was talking about an unregistered shotgun.
Mike Dix
--
"Subtract twenty" from email address to reply
Steve Krulick
>
> > georgann wrote:
> > > I was attempting to point out that when challenged on
> > > individual vs militia "right" the SC has come down on the side
> > > of individual ownership. I was not really talking about states
> > > in this matter at all.
>
> > Never! The Supreme Court has consistently held, since 1939, and so have
> > ALL the Circuits and Courts of Appeals, that there is no absolute
> > individual right to possesses firearms independent of the "reasonable
> > relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated
> > militia." That's the law; get used to it.
>
> You're wrong.
Sez you and what army. I'll believe it when you cite an actual court
decision, not what a hoplophile pseudoscholar lawyer or YOU say it
means.
> The SC has consistently held that the reference
> to "a well regulated militia" is not interpreted as a formal
> army etc.
Formal army, no; it was the state militias, and is now the National
Guard.
> They find.... I SAID FIND on the side of the
> individual right. They don't go handing out the trash you just
> screwed up and regurgitated. If you say it once again I'm
> gonna demand a serious cite. And it won't be pleasant. Your
> say so, dearie, ain't good enough.
OK, here are the ACTUAL relevant sections of current cases since Miller
in 1939, all which reference Miller. You can't get more serious than
that. Feel free to cite unchallenged cases that say the opposite; your
say so ain't good enough.
===================================
UNITED STATES v. TOT.
No. 7961. Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Decided Oct. 28, 1942.
The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides:
"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."
The appellant's contention is that if the statute under which this
prosecution was brought is to be applied to a weapon of the type he had
in his possession, then the statute violates the Second Amendment.
It is abundantly clear both from the discussions of this amendment
contemporaneous with its proposal and adoption and those of learned
writers since[13] that this amendment, unlike those providing for
protection of free speech and freedom of religion, was not adopted with
individual rights in mind, but as a protection for the States in the
maintenance of their militia organizations against possible
encroachments by the federal power.[14] The experiences in England under
James II of an armed royal force quartered upon a defenseless
citizenry[15] was fresh in the minds of the Colonists. They wanted no
repetition of that experience in their newly formed government. The
almost uniform course of decision in this country,[16] where provisions
similar in language are found in many of the State Constitutions, bears
out this concept of the constitutional guarantee. A notable instance is
the refusal to extend its application to weapons thought incapable of
military use.
The contention of the appellant in this case could, we think, be denied
without more under the authority of United States v. Miller, 1939, 307
U.S. 174, 59 S. Ct. 816, 83 L.Ed. 1206. This was a prosecution under the
National Firearms Act of 1934 and the weapon, the possession of which
had occasioned the prosecution of the accused, was a shotgun of less
than 18 inch barrel. The Court said that in the absence of evidence
tending to show that possession of such a gun at the time has some
reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well
regulated militia, it could not be said that the Second Amendment
guarantees the right to keep such an instrument. The appellant here
having failed to show such a relationship, the same thing may be said as
applied to the pistol found in his possession. It is not material on
this point that the 1934 statute was bottomed on the taxing power while
the statute in question here was based on a regulation of interstate
commerce.
But, further, the same result is definitely indicated on a broader
ground and on this we should prefer to rest the matter. Weapon bearing
was never treated as anything like an absolute right by the common law.
It was regulated by statute as to time and place as far back as the
Statute of Northampton in 1328 and on many occasions since.[17] The
decisions under the State Constitutions show the upholding of
regulations prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons, prohibiting
persons from going armed in certain public places and other
restrictions, in the nature of police regulations, but which do not go
so far as substantially to interfere with the public interest protected
by the constitutional mandates.[18] The Federal statute here involved is
one of that general type. One could hardly argue seriously that a
limitation upon the privilege of possessing weapons was unconstitutional
when applied to a mental patient of the maniac type. The same would be
true if the possessor were a child of immature years. In the situation
at bar Congress has prohibited the receipt of weapons from interstate
transactions by persons who have previously, by due process of law, been
shown to be aggressors against society.[19] Such a classification is
entirely reasonable and does not (p.267)infringe upon the preservation
of the well regulated militia protected by the Second Amendment.
(complete ruling at http://www.2ndlawlib.org/court/fed/131f2d261.html)
-----------
Key points:
1. Second Amendment "was not adopted with individual rights in mind, but
as a protection for the States in the maintenance of their militia
organizations..."
2. Under authority of US v. Miller: "in the absence of evidence tending
to show that possession of such a gun at the time has some reasonable
relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated
militia, it could not be said that the Second Amendment guarantees the
right to keep such an instrument."
3. "Weapon bearing was never treated as anything like an absolute right
by the common law."
4. "One could hardly argue seriously that a limitation upon the
privilege of possessing weapons was unconstitutional when applied to a
mental patient of the maniac type... a child of immature years...
aggressors against society. Such a classification is entirely reasonable
and does not infringe upon the preservation of the well regulated
militia protected by the Second Amendment."
===================================
CASES v. UNITED STATES.
No. 3756. Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
Nov. 27, 1942.
The Federal Firearms Act undoubtedly curtails to some extent the right
of individuals to keep and bear arms but it does not follow from this as
a necessary consequence that it is bad under the Second Amendment which
reads "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."
The right to keep and bear arms is not a right conferred upon the people
by the federal constitution.
Whatever rights in this respect the people may have depend upon local
legislation; the only function of the Second Amendment being to prevent
the federal government and the federal government only from infringing
that right. (p.922)United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553, 23
L.Ed. 588; Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265, 6 S.Ct. 580, 29 L.Ed.
615. But the Supreme Court in a dictum in Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S.
275, 282, 17 S.Ct. 326, 41 L.Ed. 715, indicated that the limitation
imposed upon the federal government by the Second Amendment was not
absolute and this dictum received the sanction of the court in the
recent case of United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 182, 59 S.Ct. 816,
83 L.Ed. 1206.
In the case last cited the Supreme Court, after discussing the history
of militia organizations in the United States, upheld the validity under
the Second Amendment of the National Firearms Act of June 26, 1934, 48
Stat. 1236, in so far as it imposed limitations upon the use of a
shotgun having a barrel less than eighteen inches long. It stated the
reason for its result on page 178 of the opinion in 307 U.S., on page
818 of 59 S.Ct., 83 L.Ed. 1206, as follows: "In the absence of any
evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a
barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some
reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well
regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees
the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not
within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary
military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common
defense."
Apparently, then, under the Second Amendment, the federal government can
limit the keeping and bearing of arms by a single individual as well as
by a group of individuals, but it cannot prohibit the possession or use
of any weapon which has any reasonable relationship to the preservation
or efficiency of a well regulated militia.
However, we do not feel that the Supreme Court in this case was
attempting to formulate a general rule applicable to all cases. The rule
which it laid down was adequate to dispose of the case before it and
that we think was as far as the Supreme Court intended to go. At any
rate the rule of the Miller case, if intended to be comprehensive and
complete would seem to be already outdated, in spite of the fact that it
was formulated only three and a half years ago, because of the well
known fact that in the so called "Commando Units" some sort of military
use seems to have been found for almost any modern lethal weapon. In
view of this, if the rule of the Miller case is general and complete,
the result would follow that, under present day conditions, the federal
government would be empowered only to regulate the possession or use of
weapons such as a flintlock musket or a matchlock harquebus. But to hold
that the Second Amendment limits the federal government to regulations
concerning only weapons which can be classed as antiques or
curiosities,--almost any other might bear some reasonable relationship
to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia unit of
the present day,--is in effect to hold that the limitation of the Second
Amendment is absolute. Another objection to the rule of the Miller case
as a full and general statement is that according to it Congress would
be prevented by the Second Amendment from regulating the possession or
use by private persons not present or prospective members of any
military unit, of distinctly military arms, such as machine guns, trench
mortars, anti-tank or anti-aircraft guns, even though under the
circumstances surrounding such possession or use it would be
inconceivable that a private person could have any legitimate reason for
having such a weapon. It seems to us unlikely that the framers of the
Amendment intended any such result. Considering the many variable
factors bearing upon the question it seems to us impossible to formulate
any general test by which to determine the limits imposed by the Second
Amendment but that each case under it, like cases under the due process
clause, must be decided on its own facts and the line between what is
and what is not a valid federal restriction pricked out by decided cases
falling on one side or the other of the line.
We therefore turn to the record in the case at bar. From it it appears
that on or about August 27, 1941, the appellant received into his
possession and carried away ten rounds of ammunition, and that on the
evening of August 30 of the same year he went to Annadale's Beach Club
on Isla Verde in the municipality of Carolina, Puerto Rico, equipped
with a .38 caliber Colt type revolver of Spanish make which, when some
one turned out the lights, he used, apparently not wholly without
effect, upon another patron of the place who in some way seems to have
incurred his displeasure. While the weapon may be capable of military
use, or while at least (p.923)familiarity with it might be regarded as
of value in training a person to use a comparable weapon of military
type and caliber, still there is no evidence that the appellant was or
ever had been a member of any military organization or that his use of
the weapon under the circumstances disclosed was in preparation for a
military career. In fact, the only inference possible is that the
appellant at the time charged in the indictment was in possession of,
transporting,[3] and using the firearm and ammunition purely and simply
on a frolic of his own and without any thought or intention of
contributing to the efficiency of the well regulated militia which the
Second Amendment was designed to foster as necessary to the security of
a free state. We are of the view that, as applied to the appellant, the
Federal Firearms Act does not conflict with the Second Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States.
(complete ruling at http://www.2ndlawlib.org/court/fed/131f2d916.html)
-----------
Key points:
1. "The right to keep and bear arms is not a right conferred upon the
people by the federal constitution.
Whatever rights in this respect the people may have depend upon local
legislation; the only function of the Second Amendment being to prevent
the federal government and the federal government only from infringing
that right. But the Supreme Court... indicated that the limitation
imposed upon the federal government by the Second Amendment was not
absolute."
2. "to hold that the Second Amendment limits the federal government to
regulations concerning only weapons which can be classed as antiques or
curiosities... is in effect to hold that the limitation of the Second
Amendment is absolute.
3. "there is no evidence that the appellant was or ever had been a
member of any military organization or that his use of the weapon under
the circumstances disclosed was in preparation for a military career...
and using the firearm and ammunition purely and simply on a frolic of
his own and without any thought or intention of contributing to the
efficiency of the well regulated militia which the Second Amendment was
designed to foster as necessary to the security of a free state. We are
of the view that, as applied to the appellant, the Federal Firearms Act
does not conflict with the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States."
===================================
UNITED STATES v. Francis J. WARIN.
No. 75-1734. United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Decided Feb. 4, 1976.
In United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 59 S.Ct. 816, 83 L.Ed. 1206
(1939), the Supreme Court held that the National Firearms Act of 1934
did not violate the Second Amendment. In its opinion the Court stated:
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of
a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at
this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or
efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second
Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.
Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part
of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to
the common defense. Id. at 178, 59 S.Ct. at 818 (citation omitted).
Warin argues that the necessary implication of the quoted language is
that a member of the "sedentary militia" may possess any weapon having
military capability and that application of 26 U.S.C. ยง 5861(d)[2] to
such a person violates the Second Amendment. We disagree. In Miller the
Supreme Court did not reach the question of the extent to which a
(p.106)weapon which is "part of the ordinary military equipment" or
whose "use could contribute to the common defense" may be regulated. In
holding that the absence of evidence placing the weapon involved in the
charges against Miller in one of these categories precluded the trial
court from quashing the indictment on Second Amendment grounds, the
Court did not hold the converse--that the Second Amendment is an
absolute prohibition against all regulation of the manufacture, transfer
and possession of any instrument capable of being used in military
action.
Within a few years after Miller v. United States was announced the First
Circuit dealt with arguments similar to those made by Warin in the
present case. In Cases v. United States, 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942),
cert. denied sub nom., Velazquez v. United States, 319 U.S. 770, 63
S.Ct. 1431, 87 L.Ed. 1718 (1943), the court held that the Supreme Court
did not intend to formulate a general rule in Miller, but merely dealt
with the facts of that case. The court of appeals noted the development
of new weaponry during the early years of World War II and concluded
that it was not the intention of the Supreme Court to hold that the
Second Amendment prohibits Congress from regulating any weapons except
antiques "such as a flintlock musket or a matchlock harquebus." 131 F.2d
at 922. If the logical extension of the defendant's argument for the
holding of Miller was inconceivable in 1942, it is completely irrational
in this time of nuclear weapons.
Agreeing as we do with the conclusion in Cases v. United States, supra,
that the Supreme Court did not lay down a general rule in Miller, we
consider the present case on its own facts and in light of applicable
authoritative decisions. It is clear that the Second Amendment
guarantees a collective rather than an individual right. In Stevens v.
United States, 440 F.2d 144, 149 (6th Cir. 1971), this court held, in a
case challenging the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. App. ยง 1202(a)(1):
Since the Second Amendment right "to keep and bear Arms" applies only to
the right of the State to maintain a militia and not to the individual's
right to bear arms, there can be no serious claim to any express
constitutional right of an individual to possess a firearm. See also,
United States v. Johnson, 497 F.2d 548, 550 (4th Cir. 1974); United
States v. Tot, 131 F.2d 261, 266 (3d Cir. 1942), rev'd on other grounds,
319 U.S. 463, 63 S.Ct. 1241, 87 L.Ed. 1519 (1943).
It is also established that the collective right of the militia is
limited to keeping and bearing arms, the possession or use of which "at
this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or
efficiency of a well regulated militia, ...." United States v. Miller,
supra, 307 U.S. at 178, 59 S.Ct. at 818. See also, United States v.
Johnson, supra; Cody v. United States, 460 F.2d 34, 37 (8th Cir.), cert.
denied, 409 U.S. 1010, 93 S.Ct. 454, 34 L.Ed.2d 303 (1972).
The fact that the defendant Warin, in common with all adult residents
and citizens of Ohio, is subject to enrollment in the militia of the
State confers upon him no right to possess the submachine gun in
question. By statute the State of Ohio exempts "members of ... the
organized militia of this or any other state, ..." (emphasis added) from
the provision, "No person shall knowingly acquire, have, carry, or use
any dangerous ordnance." Ohio Revised Code ยง 2923.17. "Dangerous
ordnance" is defined to include any automatic firearm. O.R.C. ยง 2923.11.
There is no such exemption for members of the "sedentary militia."
Furthermore, there is absolutely no evidence that a submachine gun in
the hands of an individual "sedentary militia" member would have any,
much less a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency
of a well regulated militia." Miller, supra, 307 U.S. at 178, 59 S.Ct.
at 818. Thus we conclude that the defendant has no private right to keep
and bear arms under the Second Amendment which would (p.107)bar his
prosecution and conviction for violating 26 U.S.C. ยง 5861(d).
Even where the Second Amendment is applicable, it does not constitute an
absolute barrier to the congressional regulation of firearms. After
considering several arguments the Third Circuit in United States v. Tot,
supra, stated that it decided the case on the "broader ground" that
"[w]eapon bearing was never treated as anything like an absolute right
by the common law. It was regulated by statute as to time and place as
far back as the Statute of Northampton in 1328 and on many occasions
since." 131 F.2d at 266 (footnote omitted). In Stevens v. United States,
supra, this court discussed the broad power of Congress in relying on
the commerce clause of the Constitution to deal with the changing needs
of the nation. 440 F.2d at 150-152. In United States v. Wilson, 440 F.2d
1068, 1069 (6th Cir. 1971), we held that--
The congressional history of the National Firearms Act Amendments of
1968 and its predecessor statutes clearly sets out facts sufficient for
Congress to have determined that the provisions of 26 U.S.C. ยง 5801 et
seq., as amended in 1968, are within both the taxing power, see
Sonzinsky v. United States, 300 U.S. 506, 57 S.Ct. 554, 81 L.Ed. 772
(1937), and the commerce power of Congress...
It would unduly extend this opinion to attempt to deal with every
argument made by defendant and amicus curiae, Second Amendment
Foundation, all of which are based on the erroneous supposition that the
Second Amendment is concerned with the rights of individuals rather than
those of the States or that defendant's automatic membership in the
"sedentary militia" of Ohio brings him within the reach of its
guarantees.
(complete ruling at http://www.2ndlawlib.org/court/fed/530f2d103.html)
-----------
Key points:
1. "It is clear that the Second Amendment guarantees a collective rather
than an individual right."
2. "Since the Second Amendment right "to keep and bear Arms" applies
only to the right of the State to maintain a militia and not to the
individual's right to bear arms, there can be no serious claim to any
express constitutional right of an individual to possess a firearm."
3. "It is also established that the collective right of the militia is
limited to keeping and bearing arms, the possession or use of which "at
this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or
efficiency of a well regulated militia, ...."
4. "there is absolutely no evidence that a submachine gun in the hands
of an individual "sedentary militia" member would have any, much less a
"reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well
regulated militia..." Thus we conclude that the defendant has no private
right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment..."
5."Even where the Second Amendment is applicable, it does not constitute
an absolute barrier to the congressional regulation of firearms."
6. "the erroneous supposition that the Second Amendment is concerned
with the rights of individuals rather than those of the States..."
===================================
QUILICI v. VILLAGE OF MORTON GROVE
Nos. 82-1045, 82-1076 and 82-1132. United States Court of Appeals,
Seventh Circuit.
Decided Dec. 6, 1982. As Amended Dec. 10, 1982.
It is difficult to understand how appellants can assert that Presser
supports the theory that the second amendment right to keep and bear
arms is a fundamental right which the state cannot regulate when the
Presser decision plainly states that "[t]he Second Amendment declares
that it shall not be infringed, but this ... means no more than that it
shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that
has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National
government ...." Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265, 6 S.Ct. 580,
584, 29 L.Ed. 615 (1886). As the district court explained in detail,
appellants' claim that Presser supports the proposition that the second
amendment guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms is not subject to
state restriction is based on dicta quoted out of context. Quilici v.
Village of Morton Grove, 532 F.Supp. at 1181-82. This argument borders
on the frivolous and does not warrant any further consideration.
Apparently recognizing the inherent weakness of their reliance on
Presser, appellants urge three additional arguments to buttress their
claim that the second amendment applies to the states. They contend
that: (1) Presser is no longer good law because later Supreme Court
cases incorporating (p.270)other amendments into the fourteenth
amendment have effectively overruled Presser, Reichert br. at 52; (2)
Presser is illogical, Quilici br. at 12; and (3) the entire Bill of
Rights has been implicitly incorporated into the fourteenth amendment to
apply to the states, Reichert br. at 48-52.
None of these arguments has merit. First, appellants offer no authority,
other than their own opinions, to support their arguments that Presser
is no longer good law or would have been decided differently today.
Indeed, the fact that the Supreme Court continues to cite Presser,
Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1, 4 n.2, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1491 n. 2, 12 L.Ed.2d
653 (1964), leads to the opposite conclusion. Second, regardless of
whether appellants agree with the Presser analysis, it is the law of the
land and we are bound by it. Their assertion that Presser is illogical
is a policy matter for the Supreme Court to address. Finally, their
theory of implicit incorporation is wholly unsupported. The Supreme
Court has specifically rejected the proposition that the entire Bill of
Rights applies to the states through the fourteenth amendment. Adamson
v. California, 332 U.S. 46, 67 S.Ct. 1672, 91 L.Ed. 1903 (1947),
overruled on other grounds, Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1, 84 S.Ct. 1489,
12 L.Ed.2d 653 (1964); Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 58 S.Ct. 149,
82 L.Ed. 288 (1937); Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78, 29 S.Ct. 14, 53
L.Ed. 97 (1908).
Since we hold that the second amendment does not apply to the states, we
need not consider the scope of its guarantee of the right to bear arms.
For the sake of completeness, however, and because appellants devote a
large portion of their briefs to this issue, we briefly comment on what
we believe to be the scope of the second amendment.
The second amendment provides that "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." U.S. Const. amend. II.
Construing this language according to its plain meaning, it seems clear
that the right to bear arms is inextricably connected to the
preservation of a militia. This is precisely the manner in which the
Supreme Court interpreted the second amendment in United States v.
Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 59 S.Ct. 816, 83 L.Ed. 1206 (1939), the only
Supreme Court case specifically addressing that amendment's scope. There
the Court held that the right to keep and bear arms extends only to
those arms which are necessary to maintain a well regulated militia.
In an attempt to avoid the Miller holding that the right to keep and
bear arms exists only as it relates to protecting the public security,
appellants argue that "[t]he fact that the right to keep and bear arms
is joined with language expressing one of its purposes in no way permits
a construction which limits or confines the exercise of that right."
Reichert br. at 35. They offer no explanation for how they have arrived
at this conclusion.
Alternatively, they argue that handguns are military weapons.[1.8]
Stengl's br. at 11-13. Our reading of Miller convinces us that it does
not support either of these theories. As the Village correctly notes,
appellants are essentially arguing that Miller was wrongly decided and
should be overruled. Such arguments have no place before this court.
Under the controlling authority of Miller we conclude that the right to
keep and bear handguns is not guaranteed by the second
amendment.[1.9](p.271) Because the second amendment is not applicable to
Morton Grove and because possession of handguns by individuals is not
part of the right to keep and bear arms, Ordinance No. 81-11 does not
violate the second amendment.
(complete ruling at http://www.2ndlawlib.org/court/fed/695f2d261.html)
-----------
Key points:
1. "The second amendment provides that "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." U.S. Const. amend. II.
Construing this language according to its plain meaning, it seems clear
that the right to bear arms is inextricably connected to the
preservation of a militia."
2. "Under the controlling authority of Miller we conclude that the right
to keep and bear handguns is not guaranteed by the second amendment.
Because the second amendment is not applicable to Morton Grove and
because possession of handguns by individuals is not part of the right
to keep and bear arms, Ordinance No. 81-11 does not violate the second
amendment."
===================================
UNITED STATES v. HALE.
No. 91-3830. United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Decided Oct. 20, 1992.
Hale next argues that the indictment violates his Second Amendment
rights: "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." U.S. Const. amend. II. Relying on United States v. Miller,
307 U.S. 174, 59 S.Ct. 816, 83 L.Ed. 1206 (1939), Hale argues that the
Second Amendment bars the federal government from regulating the
particular weapons seized because the weapons are susceptible to
military use and are therefore, by definition, related to the existence
of "a well regulated militia".
In Miller, the Supreme Court upheld a conviction under the National
Firearms Act for transporting a sawed-off shotgun in interstate
commerce. In so doing, the Court rejected the argument that the Second
Amendment protected the possession of that weapon:
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that the possession or
use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in
length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the
preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say
that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an
instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon
is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could
contribute to the common defense.
Miller, 307 U.S. at 178, 59 S.Ct. at 818 (citation omitted).(p.1019)
Hale wants to find in Miller the rule that individual possession of true
military weapons is protected under the Second Amendment. When the
Second Amendment was ratified in 1791, the state militias functioned as
both the principal units of military organization and as an implicit
check on federal power. See generally Keith A. Ehrman & Dennis A.
Henigan, The Second Amendment in the Twentieth Century: Have You Seen
Your Militia Lately?, 15 U.Dayton L.Rev. 5 (1989). These militias were
comprised of ordinary citizens who typically were required to provide
their own equipment and arms. The Second Amendment prevented federal
laws that would infringe upon the possession of arms by individuals and
thus render the state militias impotent. Over the next 200 years, state
militias first faded out of existence and then later reemerged as more
organized, semi-professional military units. The state provided the arms
and the equipment of the militia members, and these were stored
centrally in armories. With the passage of the Dick Act in 1903, the
state militias were organized into the national guard structure, which
remains in place today. Id.
More recently, the Supreme Court in Perpich v. U.S. Department of
Defense, 496 U.S. 334, 110 S.Ct. 2418, 110 L.Ed.2d 312 (1990), has
analyzed the early history of the militia, including the Act of 1792
which required militia members to
provide themselves "with a good musket or firelock," as well as
cartridges and other equipment. The Court observed that these
requirements were virtually ignored for more than a century. Id. at 341,
110 S.Ct. at 2423. Perpich discusses in detail the relationship between
the militia and the National Guard and recognizes that the "Federal
Government provides virtually all of the funding, the materiel, and the
leadership for the State Guard units." Id. at 351, 110 S.Ct. at 2428.
While Perpich does not deal with the Second Amendment issue present
here, its discussion of the militia gives further dimension to our
analysis.
Considering this history, we cannot conclude that the Second Amendment
protects the individual possession of military weapons. In Miller, the
Court simply recognized this historical residue. The rule emerging from
Miller is that, absent a showing that the possession of a certain weapon
has "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a
well-regulated militia," the Second Amendment does not guarantee the
right to possess the weapon. Miller, 307 U.S. at 178, 59 S.Ct. at 818.
Miller simply "did not hold ... that the Second Amendment is an absolute
prohibition against all regulation of the manufacture, transfer and
possession of any instrument capable of being used in military action."
Warin, 530 F.2d at 106.
This court has on at least three occasions, citing and relying on
Miller, denied challenges to the constitutionality of arms control
legislation, because there was no evidence of a reasonable relationship
to the maintenance of a militia. See United States v. Nelsen, 859 F.2d
1318 (8th Cir. 1988); Cody v. United States, 460 F.2d 34 (8th Cir.),
cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1010, 93 S.Ct. 454, 34 L.Ed.2d 303 (1972); United
States v. Decker, 446 F.2d 164 (8th Cir. 1971). In Nelsen and Cody we
also cited and relied on the decisions of other circuits discussed in
this opinion.[3] The Supreme Court has not addressed a Second Amendment
issue since the Miller decision. Cases v. United States, 131 F.2d 916
(1st Cir.1942), cert. denied, 319 U.S. 770, 63 S.Ct. 1431, 87 L.Ed. 1718
(1943) remains one of the most illuminating circuit opinions on the
subject of "military" weapons and the Second Amendment. Cases states
that "under the Second Amendment, the federal government can limit the
keeping and bearing of arms by a single individual, as well as by a
group of individuals, but it cannot prohibit the possession or use of
any weapon which (p.1020)has any reasonable relationship to the
preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia." Id. at 922.
After carefully examining the principles and implications of the then
recent Miller decision, the First Circuit concluded that the existence
of any "reasonable relationship to the preservation of a well regulated
militia" was best determined from the facts of each individual case. Id.
Thus, it is not sufficient to prove that the weapon in question was
susceptible to military use. Indeed, as recognized in Cases, most any
lethal weapon has a potential military use.[4] Id. Rather, the claimant
of Second Amendment protection must prove that his or her possession of
the weapon was reasonably related to a well regulated militia. See id.
at 923. Where such a claimant presented no evidence either that he was a
member of a military organization or that his use of the weapon was "in
preparation for a military career", the Second Amendment did not protect
the possession of the weapon. Id.
Since the Miller decision, no federal court has found any individual's
possession of a military weapon to be "reasonably related to a well
regulated militia." "Technical" membership in a state militia (e.g.,
membership in an "unorganized" state militia) or membership in a
non-governmental military organization is not sufficient to satisfy the
"reasonable relationship" test. Oakes, 564 F.2d at 387. Membership in a
hypothetical or "sedentary" militia is likewise insufficient. See Warin,
530 F.2d 103.
Applying these principles to the present case, we conclude that Hale's
possession of the weapons in question was not reasonably related to the
preservation of a well regulated militia. The allegation by Hale that
these weapons are susceptible to military use is insufficient to
establish such a relationship. Hale introduced no evidence and made no
claim of even the most tenuous relationship between his possession of
the weapons and the preservation of a well regulated militia. Citing
dicta from United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 265, 110
S.Ct. 1056, 1060, 108 L.Ed.2d 222 (1990), Hale argues that the Second
Amendment protections apply to individuals and not to states or
collective entities like militias.
This argument is inapplicable to this case. The purpose of the Second
Amendment is to restrain the federal government from regulating the
possession of arms where such regulation would interfere with the
preservation or efficiency of the militia. See Miller, 307 U.S. at 178,
59 S.Ct. at 818; United States v. Oakes, 564 F.2d 384 (10th Cir.1977),
cert. denied, 435 U.S. 926, 98 S.Ct. 1493, 55 L.Ed.2d 521(1978); Cody,
460 F.2d 34.
Whether the "right to bear arms" for militia purposes is "individual" or
"collective" in nature is irrelevant where, as here, the individual's
possession of arms is not related to the preservation or efficiency of a
militia.
(complete ruling at http://www.2ndlawlib.org/court/fed/978f2d1016.html)
-----------
Key points:
1. "Considering this history, we cannot conclude that the Second
Amendment protects the individual possession of military weapons."
2. "In Miller, the Court simply recognized this historical residue. The
rule emerging from Miller is that, absent a showing that the possession
of a certain weapon has "some reasonable relationship to the
preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia," the Second
Amendment does not guarantee the right to possess the weapon."
3. "This court has on at least three occasions, citing and relying on
Miller, denied challenges to the constitutionality of arms control
legislation, because there was no evidence of a reasonable relationship
to the maintenance of a militia."
4. "it is not sufficient to prove that the weapon in question was
susceptible to military use. Indeed, as recognized in Cases, most any
lethal weapon has a potential military use. Rather, the claimant of
Second Amendment protection must prove that his or her possession of the
weapon was reasonably related to a well regulated militia. Where such a
claimant presented no evidence either that he was a member of a military
organization or that his use of the weapon was "in preparation for a
military career", the Second Amendment did not protect the possession of
the weapon."
5. "Since the Miller decision, no federal court has found any
individual's possession of a military weapon to be "reasonably related
to a well regulated militia." "Technical" membership in a state militia
(e.g., membership in an "unorganized" state militia) or membership in a
non-governmental military organization is not sufficient to satisfy the
"reasonable relationship" test. Membership in a hypothetical or
"sedentary" militia is likewise insufficient."
6. "The purpose of the Second Amendment is to restrain the federal
government from regulating the possession of arms where such regulation
would interfere with the preservation or efficiency of the militia.
Whether the "right to bear arms" for militia purposes is "individual" or
"collective" in nature is irrelevant where, as here, the individual's
possession of arms is not related to the preservation or efficiency of a
militia."
===================================
LOVE v. PEPERSACK
No. 94-1582. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Decided Feb. 3, 1995.
Citing law review articles, Love argues that she has an individual
federal constitutional right to "keep and bear" a handgun, and Maryland
may not infringe upon this right. She is wrong on both counts. The
Second Amendment does not apply to the states. Presser v. Illinois, 116
U.S. 252, 6 S.Ct. 580, 29 L. Ed. 615 (1886); United States v.
Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 23 L.Ed. 588 (p.124) (1876).[5] Moreover, even
as against federal regulation, the amendment does not confer an absolute
individual right to bear any type of firearm. In 1939, the Supreme Court
held that the federal statute prohibiting possession of a sawed-off
shotgun was constitutional, because the defendant had not shown that his
possession of such a gun bore a "reasonable relationship to the
preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." United States
v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178, 59 S.Ct. 816, 818, 83 L.Ed. 1206 (1939).
Since then, the lower federal courts have uniformly held that the Second
Amendment preserves a collective, rather than individual, right. This
court's precedent is United States v. Johnson, 497 F.2d 548 (4th Cir.
1974). In Johnson, the defendant challenged the constitutionality of the
federal statute prohibiting possession of firearms by convicted felons.
We were not impressed (id. at 550):
Johnson's argument that [18 U.S.C. ยง] 922(g) is an unconstitutional
violation of his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is not
new. See, e.g., United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 59 S.Ct. 816, 83
L.Ed. 1206 (1939). The courts have consistently held that the Second
Amendment only confers a collective right of keeping and bearing arms
which must bear a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or
efficiency of a well-regulated militia." 307 U.S. at 178, 59 S.Ct. at
818. Johnson presents no evidence that section 922(g) in any way affects
the maintenance of a well regulated militia.
Love has likewise not identified how her possession of a handgun will
preserve or insure the effectiveness of the militia.
(complete ruling at http://www.2ndlawlib.org/court/fed/47f3d120.html)
-----------
Key points:
1. "The Second Amendment does not apply to the states... even as against
federal regulation, the amendment does not confer an absolute individual
right to bear any type of firearm."
2. "In 1939, the Supreme Court held that the federal statute prohibiting
possession of a sawed-off shotgun was constitutional, because the
defendant had not shown that his possession of such a gun bore a
"reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well
regulated militia." Since then, the lower federal courts have uniformly
held that the Second Amendment preserves a collective, rather than
individual, right."
3. "The courts have consistently held that the Second Amendment only
confers a collective right of keeping and bearing arms which must bear a
"reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a
well-regulated militia."
===================================
HICKMAN v. BLOCK
No. 94-55836. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Decided April 5, 1996.
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states: "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." U.S.
Const. amend. II. Hickman argues that the Second Amendment requires the
states to regulate gun ownership and use in a "reasonable" manner. The
question presented at the threshold of Hickman's appeal is whether the
Second Amendment confers upon individual citizens standing to enforce
the right to (p.101)keep and bear arms. We follow our sister circuits in
holding that the Second Amendment is a right held by the states, and
does not protect the possession of a weapon by a private citizen. We
conclude that Hickman can show no legal injury, and therefore lacks
standing to bring this action.
This case turns on the first constitutional standing element: whether
Hickman has shown injury to an interest protected by the Second
Amendment. We note at the outset that no individual has ever succeeded
in demonstrating such injury in federal court. The seminal authority in
this area continues to be United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 59
S.Ct. 816, 83 L.Ed. 1206 (1939), in which the Supreme Court upheld a
conviction under the National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C. ยง 1132 (1934), for
transporting a sawed-off shotgun in interstate commerce. The Court
rejected the appellant's hypothesis that the Second Amendment protected
his possession of that weapon. Consulting the text and history of the
amendment, the Court found that the right to keep and bear arms is meant
solely to protect the right of the states to keep and maintain armed
militia. In a famous passage, the Court held that:
[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that the possession or
use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in
length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the
preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say
that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an
instrument.
307 U.S. at 178, 59 S.Ct. at 818.[5] The Court's understanding follows a
plain reading of the Amendment's text. The Amendment's second clause
declares that the goal is to preserve the security of "a free state;"
its first clause establishes the premise that a (p.102)"well-regulated
militia" is necessary to this end. Thus it is only in furtherance of
state security that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is
finally proclaimed.[6] Following Miller, "[i]t is clear that the Second
Amendment guarantees a collective rather than an individual right."
United States v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103, 106 (6th Cir.), cert. denied 426
U.S. 948, 96 S.Ct. 3168, 49 L.Ed.2d 1185 (1976); see also Thomas v.
Members of City Council of Portland, 730 F.2d 41, 42 (1st Cir. 1984)
(same, citing Warin); United States v. Johnson, 497 F.2d 548, 550 (4th
Cir. 1974) (cited with approval in Lewis, 445 U.S. at 65 n.8, 100 S.Ct.
at 921 n.8) (same). Because the Second Amendment guarantees the right of
the states to maintain armed militia, the states alone stand in the
position to show legal injury when this right is infringed.
Nevertheless, Hickman argues that under the Second Amendment,
individuals have the right to complain about the manner in which a state
arms its citizens. We fail to see the logic in this argument. The Second
Amendment creates a right, not a duty. It does not oblige the states to
keep armed militia,[7] or to arm their citizens generally, although some
states do preserve, nominally at least, a broad individual right to bear
arms as a foundation for their state militia.[8] See, e.g., People v.
Blue, 190 Colo. 95, 544 P.2d 385 (1975) (en banc) (citing Colo. Const.
art. II, ยง 13) (recognizing individual right to bear arms under state
constitution); State v. Amos, 343 So.2d 166, 168 (La. 1977) (citing La.
Const. art I, ยง 11) (same proposition); State v. Krantz, 24 Wash.2d 350,
164 P.2d 453 (1945) (citing Wash. Const. art I, ยง 24) (same
proposition); Akron v. Williams, 113 Ohio App. 293, 177 N.E.2d 802
(1960) (citing Ohio Const. art. I, ยง 4) (same proposition). Even in
states which profess to maintain a citizen militia, an individual may
not rely on this fact to manipulate the Constitution's legal injury
requirement by arguing that a particular weapon of his admits some
military use, or that he himself is a member of the armed citizenry from
which the state draws its militia. United States v. Oakes, 564 F.2d 384,
387 (10th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 926, 98 S.Ct. 1493, 55
L.Ed.2d 521 (1978) (technical membership in state militia insufficient
to show legal injury under Second Amendment); Warin, 530 F.2d at 106
(same with respect to individual "subject to enrollment" in state
militia); United States v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016, 1019 (8th (p.103)Cir.
1992) (same, citing Warin); United States v. Graves, 554 F.2d 65, 66 n.2
(3rd. Cir. 1977) (en banc) (narrowly construing the Second Amendment "to
guarantee the right to bear arms as a member of a militia").
(complete ruling at http://www.2ndlawlib.org/court/fed/81f3d98.html)
-----------
Key points:
1. "We follow our sister circuits in holding that the Second Amendment
is a right held by the states, and does not protect the possession of a
weapon by a private citizen."
2. "Consulting the text and history of the amendment, the [Supreme]
Court found [in US v. Miller] that the right to keep and bear arms is
meant solely to protect the right of the states to keep and maintain
armed militia."
3. "The Court's understanding follows a plain reading of the Amendment's
text. The Amendment's second clause declares that the goal is to
preserve the security of "a free state;" its first clause establishes
the premise that a "well-regulated militia" is necessary to this end.
Thus it is only in furtherance of state security that "the right of the
people to keep and bear arms" is finally proclaimed."
4. "Because the Second Amendment guarantees the right of the states to
maintain armed militia, the states alone stand in the position to show
legal injury when this right is infringed."
5. "The Second Amendment creates a right, not a duty. It does not oblige
the states to keep armed militia, or to arm their citizens generally,
although some states do preserve, nominally at least, a broad individual
right to bear arms as a foundation for their state militia."
> The liberalisimos have thus resorted to tort law to try to
> take away our ability to own firearms since they can't get
> anywhere taking away our right to bear arms.
>
And the NRA has resorted to bribing politicians because it can't make
headway in the courts.
> > > georgann wrote:
> > > To your last comment, you could also go to the cities where
> > > guns are supposedly banned (like NYC) and simply wait to be
> > > accosted by a criminal with one.
>
> > I lived in NYC for decades, and still go there regularly for business; I
> > have never been accosted by a criminal, with or without a gun. Anytime
> > of day or night, in neighborhoods of every ethnicity, in Central Park or
> > the subways, alone or in groups. I'm tired of waiting! I've also never
> > been called "whitey," "kike" or any other epithet. Am I missing
> > something, or am I just walking around in a protective karma bubble?
>
> georgann wrote:
> That's very interesting. My husband lived in NYC for 4 years
> and had 6 (COUNT THEM SIX) major encounters with criminals
> there. In each case if he had NOT produced an "illegal"
> handgun he may well have died. One was where the goons stopped
> their car up in front of his late one night inside the tunnel
> and started walking back towards his car. He knew it was a
> hijack / robbery / killing about to happen so he laid his 45
> auto on the top of the open door and warned them not to come
> any closer. (Fair minded fellow my husband.) They back peddled
> fast, got into their car and sped away. Another was in Central
> Park. A punk kid pulled a knife on him. When he raised his
> handgun to the level of the punk's face the jerk said "Hey you
> can't do that. That's illegal".
I guess some people just attract trouble; could be he gives off those
vibes? Maybe God tempers the wind to the shorn lamb?
>
> I suggest you go back to bed now. More dreams of wonderland
> await you.
I, for one, am not subject to paranoid nightmares of jack-booted govt
thugs, marauding criminals, and gun-grabbing pols. I sleep like a baby.
--------------------------------------------
Criminals, grabbers, and thugs, OH MY!!
Criminals, grabbers, and thugs, OH MY!!!!
Criminals, grabbers, and thugs, OH MY!!!!!!
--------------------------------------------
Walt Horning
You can say this all you want, but the founding fathers pointed out
how this was a citizen militia, not under the direct control of the
government. It could of course "coordinate" with the government in
those days for the common defenses.
axel heyst
pla...@not.replyable.com (Jim String) wrote:
>In article <39528826...@news.alt.net>, Roger Denney wrote:
>>The Second Amendment
>>
>>Does It Give You The Right To Own A Gun?
>
>No, it does not "give" me the right to own a gun, it merely
>recognizes and enumerates a right which is pre-existing and
>self-evident.
>
>The Bill of Rights does not "give" or "grant" any right whatsoever,
>it merely recognizes and enumerates some of them.
>
>Since we as a society (the Constitution is actually a social contract
>between the individuals) have not vested the exclusive power of arms in
>government then naturally individuals have the right to own guns.
>
>Government has only the powers that we give it, and the RKBA is not
>one of them. Go ahead and look long and hard through the Constitution
>and you will not find language there which vests the exclusive power
>of arms into government. The BoR doesn't vest powers, it's all about
>what powers specificly _aren't_ vested in government, i.e. individual
>rights.
Should government have the power to limit the kinds of weapons one owns?
Does it have that power now?
Axel
Steve Krulick
>
> On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 18:05:03 -0400, Steve Krulick <kry...@ulster.net> wrote:
>
> >Never! The Supreme Court has consistently held, since 1939, and so have
> >ALL the Circuits and Courts of Appeals, that there is no absolute
> >individual right to possesses firearms independent of the "reasonable
> >relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated
> >militia." That's the law; get used to it.
>
Sez you and DeMoss, whoever he is.
Read my post in this thread that clearly and unambiguously spells out
how the highest federal courts have consistently read Miller for 60
years.
It's them vs. you.
I'll side with them.
----------------------------
"reasonable relationship to
the preservation or
efficiency of a
well regulated militia."
----------------------------
Bill Bonde
> ABC: 'NO CONTRACT' FOR RUSH LIMBAUGH ON MONDAY NIGHT
> FOOTBALL
>
> **Exclusive**
>
> ABC-TV has decided not to extend an offer to RadioKing
> Rush Limbaugh to become color commentator of its
> Monday Night Football franchise, the DRUDGE REPORT has
> learned.
>
> Limbaugh, who has pulled in millions of dollars of ad
> revenue for the network's radio stations with his
> daily broadcast, was thwarted at the very top levels
> of DISNEY, according to sources.
>
> DISNEY head Michael Eisner told a small group of
> executives last week that ABC "would not be doing a
> contract" with Limbaugh. But Eisner added, "the
> possibility of guest spots should be investigated."
>
> Officially, ABC has not yet announced who will sit in
> the booth this fall.
>
> This is not the first time DISNEY has passed on an
> opportunity to work with Limbaugh. Several years back,
> former DISNEY exec Michael Ovitz rejected a motion to
> buy Limbaugh's syndicated show, which was already
> carried on many ABC-owned stations and affiliates. The
> show was quickly purchased by PREMIERE RADIO NETWORKS.
>
> Limbaugh's program continues to deliver the most
> lucrative radio hours in the world.
>
> High-ranking Limbaugh supporters within ABC have
> already labeled the Monday Night Football pass:
> "Mistake Number Two."
>
> "It would have been great fun, not only for me
> personally, but for the network and its advertisers,"
> a senior ABC source said over the weekend. "Quite
> frankly, Drudge, the decision was not based on
> economics, it was based on politics."
Steve Krulick
>
> Steve Krulick wrote:
> >
> > georgann wrote:
> > >
> > > > Georgann:
> > > individual vs militia "right" the SC has come down on the side
> > > of individual ownership. I was not really talking about states
> > > in this matter at all.
> > >
>
> ruled on any Second Amendment cases since US v. Miller, and if
> they had ruled as you suggest in Miller.
That's the point; they haven't HAD TO! As far as they're concerned, it's
a done deal. It stands. No case has had to go higher than the Courts of
Appeals, since they have read Miller the same way for 60 years, in EVERY
Circuit. Why hasn't the NRA or anyone else taken any federal law, say
Brady, to the SCOTUS on 2nd Amen grounds? Because they know they CAN'T
win! Think about it.
> > and so have
> > ALL the Circuits and Courts of Appeals, that there is no absolute
> > individual right to possesses firearms independent of the "reasonable
> > relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated
> > militia." That's the law; get used to it.
> >
> > In just the 4th Circuit alone: In Love v. Peppersack, 47 F.3d 120 (4th
> > Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 813 (1995), an applicant for the purchase
> > of a handgun filed a 42 U.S.C. เธ 1983 action against police officers
> > involved in the denial of her application alleging, among other things,
> > that her right "to keep and bear" a handgun had been violated.
>
> Her rap sheet showed four arrests for taking her clothes off for money.
> No convictions showed up, and of course these were all misdemeanors,
> not felonies.
>
> This shows how the police can abuse their discretion if they are in
> charge of deciding who can and cannot be armed. I think it's logical
> for a stripper to have the means of self-defense, even if the police
> do not.
We're not talking about the particulars, but the courts' interpretations
of Miller. Here's what they say in that case:
Since then, the lower federal courts have uniformly held that the Second
Amendment preserves a collective, rather than individual, right. This
court's precedent is United States v. Johnson, 497 F.2d 548 (4th Cir.
1974). In Johnson, the defendant challenged the constitutionality of the
federal statute prohibiting possession of firearms by convicted felons.
We were not impressed (id. at 550):
Johnson's argument that [18 U.S.C. เธ] 922(g) is an unconstitutional
violation of his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is not
new. See, e.g., United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 59 S.Ct. 816, 83
L.Ed. 1206 (1939). The courts have consistently held that the Second
Amendment only confers a collective right of keeping and bearing arms
which must bear a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or
efficiency of a well-regulated militia." 307 U.S. at 178, 59 S.Ct. at
818. Johnson presents no evidence that section 922(g) in any way affects
the maintenance of a well regulated militia.
Love has likewise not identified how her possession of a handgun will
preserve or insure the effectiveness of the militia.
> > Like the
> > Emerson/Cummings trial, the applicant cited a number of law review
> > articles in support of her Second Amendment claim. After noting the
> > Second Amendment did not apply to the states, the court stated the
> > Amendment did not "confer an absolute individual right to bear any type
> > of firearm."
>
> Two of three judges agreed to this, not Luttig.
And 5-4 wins in SCOTUS. So?
> > Referring to Miller, the court stated that: "Since then,
> > the lower federal courts have uniformly held that the Second Amendment
> > preserves a collective, rather than individual, right." Ultimately, the
> > Fourth Circuit disposed of the Second Amendment challenge by recognizing
> > that "courts have consistently held that the Second Amendment only
> > confers a collective right of keeping and bearing arms which must bear a
> > 'reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well
> > regulated militia.'"
> >
> > I have cited nearly a dozen major courts decisions on these NGs and they
> > say the same thing.
> >
>
> In GONG LUM v. RICE, 275 U.S. 78 (1927), the Supreme Court, relying on
> its decision in Plessy v. Ferguson, agreed with a high school district
> in Mississippi that Chinese people were colored, and had to go to
> the colored school, and not the school that the white kids got to
> go to.
>
> Fortunately, the NAACP did not accept your advice, "That's the law;
> get used to it," else they'd be riding on the back of the bus to
> this day.
What's your point, that times change and courts make errors? So invoke
your right to speak and go to court. Get the public to back you. Get
firehosed and go to jail for what you believe. But you won't win with
same old, wrong arguments.
> The Miller court was talking about an unregistered shotgun.
...And how it's possession by Miller was not protected by the 2nd Amen
"because the defendant had not shown that his possession of such a gun
bore a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a
well regulated militia." Later court cases clarified that the particular
weapon wasn't the point, since any firearm could serve some military
function, but that MILLER'S POSSESSION OF IT, or presumably ANY weapon,
failed to bear a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or
efficiency of a well regulated militia."
Get the distinction? It's not the fact that it was a shotgun per se, but
that MILLER's possession of it did not meet the test.
Jim Patrick
>> On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 18:05:03 -0400, Steve Krulick <kry...@ulster.net> wrote:
>> >Never! The Supreme Court has consistently held, since 1939, and so have
>> >ALL the Circuits and Courts of Appeals, that there is no absolute
>> >individual right to possesses firearms independent of the "reasonable
>> >relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated
>> >militia." That's the law; get used to it.
>Jim Patrick wrote:
>> "You're misreading the 1939 Miller case." --- Harold R. DeMoss Jr.
>Sez you and DeMoss, whoever he is.
>Read my post in this thread that clearly and unambiguously spells out
>how the highest federal courts have consistently read Miller for 60
>years. It's them vs. you. I'll side with them.
"You're misreading the 1939 Miller case." --- Harold R. DeMoss Jr.
He's a "them", and he says you're wrong. Not possibly wrong; plain wrong.
Steve Krulick
>
> On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 22:30:47 -0400, Steve Krulick <kry...@ulster.net> wrote:
>
> >> On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 18:05:03 -0400, Steve Krulick <kry...@ulster.net> wrote:
> >> >Never! The Supreme Court has consistently held, since 1939, and so have
> >> >ALL the Circuits and Courts of Appeals, that there is no absolute
> >> >individual right to possesses firearms independent of the "reasonable
> >> >relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated
> >> >militia." That's the law; get used to it.
>
> >Jim Patrick wrote:
> >> "You're misreading the 1939 Miller case." --- Harold R. DeMoss Jr.
>
> >Sez you and DeMoss, whoever he is.
> >Read my post in this thread that clearly and unambiguously spells out
> >how the highest federal courts have consistently read Miller for 60
> >years. It's them vs. you. I'll side with them.
>
> "You're misreading the 1939 Miller case." --- Harold R. DeMoss Jr.
> He's a "them", and he says you're wrong. Not possibly wrong; plain wrong.
He's all the Courts of Appeals? Wow! Could you be a tad more specific?
What EXACTLY does he say, and where, and in what context? Or is he just
standing there in your closet and you're quoting him right now?
-------------------------
History: Man's infinite
ability to justify
and rationalize anything
-------------------------
Jim Patrick
>OK, here are the actual relevant sections of current cases since Miller
>in 1939, ALL which reference Miller. ..... <emphasis changed by j.p.>
If ALL the cases reference Miller, and ALL cite it the same way,
then ALL of them are dependent on that interpretation of the case.
>...You can't get more serious than that.
Except that none of the cases you cite ever went to the Supreme Court,
so yes, they can get a lot more serious than that.
>Feel free to cite unchallenged cases that say the opposite;
>your say so ain't good enough.
"You're misreading the 1939 Miller case." --- Harold R. DeMoss, Jr.
Steve Krulick
> how this was a citizen militia, not under the direct control of the
> government. It could of course "coordinate" with the government in
> those days for the common defenses.
Show me where in the Constitution there is a "citizen militia" as
distinct from the one mentioned in the 2nd Amen or in the Articles. Show
me where they can do what they wanted independent of lawful govt
authority.
Here's John Adams on the subject:
To suppose arms in the hands of the citizens, to be used at individual
discretion, except in private self defense, or by partial orders of
towns, counties, or districts of a state, is to demolish every
constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed
by no man โ is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of
the militia is, that it be created, directed, and commanded by the laws,
and ever for the support of the laws.
The militias were under direct control of each state and the federal
govt was not uninvolved; the feds just couldn't infringe on the states'
right to organize and maintain their militias.
Jim Patrick
>> >Sez you and DeMoss, whoever he is.
>> >Read my post in this thread that clearly and unambiguously spells out
>> >how the highest federal courts have consistently read Miller for 60
>> >years. It's them vs. you. I'll side with them.
>Jim Patrick wrote:
>> "You're misreading the 1939 Miller case." --- Harold R. DeMoss Jr.
>> He's a "them", and he says you're wrong. Not possibly wrong; plain wrong.
>
>He's all the Courts of Appeals? Wow!
Can you re-post my statement to that effect? Didn't think so.
It helps if you don't fabricate additional lies to compound your errors.
>Could you be a tad more specific?
>What EXACTLY does he say, and where, and in what context?
Claims that the Second Amendment only applies to arms issued to militia
members, which includes the appellate decisions you cite; are wrong.
>...Or is he just standing there in your closet and you're quoting him right now?
It doesn't help your case to act like a sore loser either.
Steve Krulick
> Should government have the power to limit the kinds of weapons one owns?
> Does it have that power now?
Yes. And yes.
Allan Lindsay-ONeal
"Roger Denney" <rgde...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> The Second Amendment
>
> Does It Give You The Right To Own A Gun?
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
<snip>
What's the matter, Roger? Sounds like you have a bladder control problem
over what's happening in New Orleans. I hear Dennis (Henigan), your suck
from HCI - even he's worried.
Steve Krulick
>
> On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 22:00:56 -0400, Steve Krulick <kry...@ulster.net> wrote:
>
> >OK, here are the actual relevant sections of current cases since Miller
> >in 1939, ALL which reference Miller. ..... <emphasis changed by j.p.>
>
> If ALL the cases reference Miller, and ALL cite it the same way,
> then ALL of them are dependent on that interpretation of the case.
And they said in clear words what they interpreted Miller to mean, and
they all agree on the basics.
>
> >...You can't get more serious than that.
>
> Except that none of the cases you cite ever went to the Supreme Court,
> so yes, they can get a lot more serious than that.
ARE YOU STILL NOT PAYING ATTENTION: The cases didn't HAVE TO go to the
SCOTUS. They found that the 2nd Amen was not violated by any of the laws
in question, therefore the laws stood as constitutional. Obviously the
judges, in every circuit and over 60 years, liverall or concernative,
north or south, are able to read plain English and come to the same
conclusion.
> >Feel free to cite unchallenged cases that say the opposite;
> >your say so ain't good enough.
>
> "You're misreading the 1939 Miller case." --- Harold R. DeMoss, Jr.
>
> Jim Patrick
Just as I figured, back to square one. Well, it's a daunting task, so
take a few days to find something solid, then come back and show me what
you've got.
----------------------------
"I am not
going to be
pushed, filed, indexed,
stamped, briefed, debriefed
or numbered. My
life is my
own." (The Prisoner)
----------------------------
Steve Krulick
> >
> >Does It Give You The Right To Own A Gun?
>
> recognizes and enumerates a right which is pre-existing and
> self-evident.
A right only in the state of nature, or anarchy. The right to overthrow
a constitution can't be recognized by that constitution.
>
> The Bill of Rights does not "give" or "grant" any right whatsoever,
> it merely recognizes and enumerates some of them.
>
Civil rights are what a constitution grants; why white, property-owning
males over 21 could vote and blacks, females and 18 year olds couldn't
in 1800 is precisely the kind of rights that a constitution can give or
withhold. To say that women actually "had" the right to vote since time
began was of small practical comfort to them until the 19th Amendment.
> Since we as a society (the Constitution is actually a social contract
> between the individuals) have not vested the exclusive power of arms in
> government then naturally individuals have the right to own guns.
Do you believe you have the right, as an individual sovereign, to
voluntarily choose to grant or withold your allegience to the
Constitution and the govt it established as you feel so inclined?
Individuals may own arms, but the govt has the right to register them as
a matter of public safety and to inventory what is available to provide
common defense, should the militia be called up. To claim a right to
guns outside the accountability to and authority of the law, is to claim
a pre-constitutional, eternally-revolutionary, state of nature right
that is tantamount to insurrection against the constitution.
>
> Government has only the powers that we give it, and the RKBA is not
> one of them. Go ahead and look long and hard through the Constitution
> and you will not find language there which vests the exclusive power
> of arms into government. The BoR doesn't vest powers, it's all about
> what powers specificly _aren't_ vested in government, i.e. individual
> rights.
And the first power we give up is individual sovereignty. We cede
supreme political power and supremacy to the "just powers" of the
government of, by, and for the People.
And I use the very words Hamilton used. (see below) But, true, it is not
a separate entity, as the British Crown was (King/Subjects) but a
republic (constitutional govt/citizens).
The consent to be governed means citizens put themselves under law and
government and create sovereign public authority. The consent to be
governed does not create an ad hoc voluntary association. The founders
were not impractical idealists or utopians or libertarians. Alexander
Hamilton wrote in Federalist Paper No. 33:
If individuals enter into a state of society, the laws of that society
must be the supreme regulator of their conduct. If a number of political
societies enter into a larger political society, the laws which the
latter may enact, pursuant to the powers intrusted to it by its
constitution, must necessarily be supreme over those societies and the
individuals of whom they are composed. It would otherwise be a mere
treaty, dependent on the good faith of the parties, and not a
government, which is only another word for POLITICAL POWER AND
SUPREMACY. [caps in original]
James Madison said: "What is the meaning of government? An institution
to make people do their duty. A government leaving it to a man to do his
duty or not, as he pleases, would be a new species of government, or
rather no government at all." (in the Virginia Ratification debates, 3
Elliot's Debates 413)
Further on in American history, President Lincoln said: "Perpetuity is
implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national
governments." Chief Justice Edward Douglas White said: "A governmental
power which has no sanction to it and which therefore can only be
exercised provided the citizen consents to its exertions is in no
substantial sense a power." This is not panty-waist Arcadian
wistfulness, but the kind of govt ready to send in the militia to put
down insurrection, as Washington did in 1794.
The Libertarian Party Platform states that the right to exercise force
inheres in the individual. This is true in the State of Nature but not
under law and government. James Wilson, one of the Framers of
Constitution, argued for ratification before Pennsylvania ratifying
convention with the observation:
Civil liberty is natural liberty itself, divested only of that part
which, placed in the government, produces more good and happiness to the
community than if it had remained in the individual. Hence it follows
that civil liberty, while it resigns a part of natural liberty, retains
the free and generous exercise of all the human faculties, so far as it
is compatible with the public welfare. (2 Elliot's Debates 429)
The state of New Hampshire went so far as to write the fundamental
concept into its 1784 Bill of Rights:
When men enter into a state of society, they surrender up some of their
natural rights to that society, in order to insure the protection of
others; and, without such an equivalent, the surrender is void.
The first natural right they surrender up is Locke's "executive power of
the law of nature." Otherwise, there is no political community, no "just
powers" of government, and no political obligation.
You also must look at how words were used: "to keep and bear arms" has
military meaning; it doesn't just mean to possess and carry guns. To
bear arms is to serve as a soldier does, in the army or militia. Yes,
individuals "bear arms" but not in a vacuum, or in the sense of
self-defense;
Michael Dix
some case materials. Sorry.
> (complete ruling at http://www.2ndlawlib.org/court/fed/131f2d261.html)
>
> -----------
> Key points:
a.Felons have no Second Amendment right to possess firearms and
ammunition.
b. This decision was overturned by the US Supreme Court (TOT v. U.S.,
319 U.S. 463 (1943)), though not on Second Amendment grounds.
> (complete ruling at http://www.2ndlawlib.org/court/fed/131f2d916.html)
>
> -----------
> Key points:
a.Felons have no Second Amendment right to possess firearms and
ammunition.
"We are of the view that, as applied to the appellant, the
Federal Firearms Act does not conflict with the Second Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States."
"This is an appeal from a judgment of the District Court of the
United States for Puerto Rico sentencing the defendant to a term of
imprisonment after he had been found guilty by a jury on all four
counts of an indictment charging him with violating section 2(e)
and (f) [footnote 1] of the Federal Firearms Act, 52 Stat. 1250, 15
U.S.C.A. section 901-909, by transporting and receiving a firearm
and ammunition."(e) It shall be unlawful for any person who is under
indictment or who has been convicted of a crime of violence or who is a
fugutive* [fugitive] from justice to ship, transport, or cause to
be shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce any
firearm or ammunition.
"(f) It shall be unlawful for any person who has been
convicted of a crime of violence or is a fugutive* [fugitive]
from justice to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been
shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, and the
possession of a firearm or ammunition by any such person shall be
presumptive evidence that such firearm or ammunition was shipped or
transported or received, as the case may be, by such person in
violation of this chapter.
*So in original."
>
> 1. "The right to keep and bear arms is not a right conferred upon the
> people by the federal constitution.
Right - it existed long before the constitution did.
>
> Whatever rights in this respect the people may have depend upon local
> legislation; the only function of the Second Amendment being to prevent
> the federal government and the federal government only from infringing
> that right. But the Supreme Court... indicated that the limitation
> imposed upon the federal government by the Second Amendment was not
> absolute."
Right - thanks to "selective incorporation" only Amendments 1,4,5,6,7,
and 8 have been applied to the states. Because the 3rd does not
apply to the states, watch out for when the
National Guard wants to stay over at your place. (Hint: buy some beer.)
a. Don't make your own submachine gun at home.
> (complete ruling at http://www.2ndlawlib.org/court/fed/695f2d261.html)
>
You left out the dissenter:
I find today's decision particularly disturbing as it
sanctions governmental action which I feel impermissibly interferes
with basic human freedoms. I cannot let this opportunity pass
without expressing my concern with the erosion of these rights.
The majority cavalierly dismisses the argument that the right
to possess commonly owned arms for self-defense and the protection
of loved ones is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution.
Justice Cardozo in Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325, 58
S.Ct. 149, 151, 82 L.Ed. 288 (1937), defined fundamental rights as
those rights "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty." Surely
nothing could be more fundamental to the "concept of ordered
liberty" than the basic right of an individual, within the confines
of the criminal law, to protect his home and family from unlawful
and dangerous intrusions.
> -----------
> Key points:
a. The Second Amendment does not apply to the states
Key point:
a.) Don't own 13 unregistered machine guns.
axel heyst
pla...@not.replyable.com (Jim String) wrote:
>Incorrect.
>
>Actually, government _could_ have the power to limit the kinds of weapons
>we can own, if we gave it to them. We have not given them this power at
>the present time. The fact that they _think_ they have this power is
>irrelevant, because they do not have it legitimately.
So what's up with my wanting to buy a machine gun, and not being able to
get one? I'm telling you truly, no one needs one like I need one, and I
can't get one, due to government regs. Can I fight this? Who will represent
me, on a pro-bono basis, like the ACLU does for first amendment issues?
Will the NRA help me get one (or two)?
>However, in point of fact, the government _does_ have the power to limit
>certain types of weapons, such as sporting weapons. Hunting is not a
>Constitutional right so there's nothing wrong with sporting shotguns
>being required to use bismuth rather than lead shot, or hunting rifles
>being limited to 5 rounds and so on.
Could you explain further how your second paragraph is congruent with your
first? Also, what business is it of the governments whether I want to buy a
gun to hunt, shoot targets, collect, or even plan a little revolution?
>But government has no Constitutional power to limit non-sporting weapons,
>read the Constitution, it just isn't there.
I have, but I'm not aware of any distinction 'twixt sporting v
non-sporting weaponry.
>As to whether government _should_ have the power, well, that's debatable.
>It's certainly possible to vest government with that power, just pass a
>Constitutional amendment. If enough people agree and the proper procedure
>is followed we _can_ by virtue of our self-evident, pre-existing, _individual_
>RKBA vest government with the exclusive or nearly exclusive power of arms.
None of this answers why I can't buy myself a nice full-on latter-day
Tommygun...
>I personally don't think that at this time it would be wise or desirable
>to do so, and at this time government assuredly does not have that power.
>Anyone who thinks the government is empowered to control what weapons
>we may keep and bear is welcome to post the language in the Constitution
>which vests this power in government. Hint: it's not the 2nd Amendment,
>the BoR is about individual rights, not powers that are vested in government.
>That's what the rest of the Constitution is all about, and the exclusive
>power of arms, or the power to control arms, just isn't there.
Hey man, you find me a way to buy me what I need, well I'll send ya a nice
crisp $100 bill!
Axel
James F. Mayer
> >
> >georgann wrote:
> >
> >YES.
> >
> And the question was; Does the Second Amendment only apply to the states?
>
> P.S. Some gunners think that if there is no special right to have a gun under
> the Second Amendment, there is no right to own a gun.
No, that is your interpretation.
How silly! The BoR
> doesn't even mention houses, do you think you have no right to own a house?
It is covered under the tenth but Albert thinks that only those rights
mentioned in the BOR are the only ones that the general citizenry has.
> --
> """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
> "By constantly harping on the theme that the Constitution is under fire, the
> NRA incites hatred and violence. While insisting that it stands for law and
> order, the NRA foments anarchy and chaos."
> Jack Anderson in "Inside the NRA"
>
>
>
Jack Anderson has never been "Inside the NRA" and is nothing more
than a hack journalist with a grudge.
Jim String
>The Second Amendment
>
>Does It Give You The Right To Own A Gun?
No, it does not "give" me the right to own a gun, it merely
recognizes and enumerates a right which is pre-existing and
self-evident.
The Bill of Rights does not "give" or "grant" any right whatsoever,
it merely recognizes and enumerates some of them.
Since we as a society (the Constitution is actually a social contract
between the individuals) have not vested the exclusive power of arms in
government then naturally individuals have the right to own guns.
Government has only the powers that we give it, and the RKBA is not
one of them. Go ahead and look long and hard through the Constitution
and you will not find language there which vests the exclusive power
of arms into government. The BoR doesn't vest powers, it's all about
what powers specificly _aren't_ vested in government, i.e. individual
rights.
Best,
Jim
Mimi Weasel
>You can say this all you want, but the founding fathers pointed >out how this was a citizen militia, not under the direct control >of the government. It could of course "coordinate" with the >government in those days for the common defenses.
I'm glad to see your claim that you would commit suicide held no more
facts than anything else you've ever posted.
--
Mimi Weasel
Steve Krulick
>
> On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 23:00:48 -0400, Steve Krulick <kry...@ulster.net> wrote:
>
> >> >Sez you and DeMoss, whoever he is.
> >> >Read my post in this thread that clearly and unambiguously spells out
> >> >how the highest federal courts have consistently read Miller for 60
> >> >years. It's them vs. you. I'll side with them.
>
> >Jim Patrick wrote:
> >> "You're misreading the 1939 Miller case." --- Harold R. DeMoss Jr.
> >> He's a "them", and he says you're wrong. Not possibly wrong; plain wrong.
> >
> >He's all the Courts of Appeals? Wow!
>
> Can you re-post my statement to that effect? Didn't think so.
> It helps if you don't fabricate additional lies to compound your errors.
You said, and it's right there for all to see "He's a them." The only
"them" in the previous quote is "the highest federal courts." Therefore
"He (DeMoss)= the highest federal courts" which = all the Courts of
Appeals. How else can one interpret what you've said, absent any other
clarification by you?
You are one amazing straw grabber, particularly to answer your own
questions in one line.
> >Could you be a tad more specific?
> >What EXACTLY does he say, and where, and in what context?
>
> Claims that the Second Amendment only applies to arms issued to militia
> members, which includes the appellate decisions you cite; are wrong.
I repeat, since you are slow on the uptake it seems: What exactly does
he say -- IN HIS OWN WORDS PLEASE -- and when and where did he say it,
and in what context. If he's "a them" could you explain? Is he a judge?
Has he ruled in a case on a high federal court? Can you give us a clue
here? Why are the claims wrong? What are his reasons? What authority
does he cite?
> >...Or is he just standing there in your closet and you're quoting him right now?
> It doesn't help your case to act like a sore loser either.
Oh behave! My case stands on the facts and cases I've cited. You, at
this point have not even stepped up to the plate. If you can't provide
even the skimpiest of substantiation, why should anyone take your
seriously?
---------------------
Nobody has the
inalienable right to
waste another's time
---------------------
Jim String
>axel heyst wrote:
>
>> Should government have the power to limit the kinds of weapons one owns?
>> Does it have that power now?
>
>Yes. And yes.
Incorrect.
Actually, government _could_ have the power to limit the kinds of weapons
we can own, if we gave it to them. We have not given them this power at
the present time. The fact that they _think_ they have this power is
irrelevant, because they do not have it legitimately.
However, in point of fact, the government _does_ have the power to limit
certain types of weapons, such as sporting weapons. Hunting is not a
Constitutional right so there's nothing wrong with sporting shotguns
being required to use bismuth rather than lead shot, or hunting rifles
being limited to 5 rounds and so on.
But government has no Constitutional power to limit non-sporting weapons,
read the Constitution, it just isn't there.
As to whether government _should_ have the power, well, that's debatable.
It's certainly possible to vest government with that power, just pass a
Constitutional amendment. If enough people agree and the proper procedure
is followed we _can_ by virtue of our self-evident, pre-existing, _individual_
RKBA vest government with the exclusive or nearly exclusive power of arms.
I personally don't think that at this time it would be wise or desirable
to do so, and at this time government assuredly does not have that power.
Anyone who thinks the government is empowered to control what weapons
we may keep and bear is welcome to post the language in the Constitution
which vests this power in government. Hint: it's not the 2nd Amendment,
the BoR is about individual rights, not powers that are vested in government.
That's what the rest of the Constitution is all about, and the exclusive
power of arms, or the power to control arms, just isn't there.
Best,
Jim
Jim String
>Jim String wrote:
>>
>> In article <39528826...@news.alt.net>, Roger Denney wrote:
>> >The Second Amendment
>> >
>> >Does It Give You The Right To Own A Gun?
>>
>> No, it does not "give" me the right to own a gun, it merely
>> recognizes and enumerates a right which is pre-existing and
>> self-evident.
>
>A right only in the state of nature, or anarchy. The right to overthrow
>a constitution can't be recognized by that constitution.
Agreed. The right to overthrow a constitution contained within that
constitution would be a contradiction. But that isn't what the 2nd
Amendment is, not at all. The 2nd is the Constitution's self-defense
mechanism, the right of the people to keep and bears arms is among
other things for the security of a free state, it allows the means to
deal appropriately with those who subvert and pervert, or ignore the
Constitution. The 2nd isn't in the least about overthrow or revolution,
it about continuity and restoration of lawful Constitutional government.
>> The Bill of Rights does not "give" or "grant" any right whatsoever,
>> it merely recognizes and enumerates some of them.
>>
>Civil rights are what a constitution grants; why white, property-owning
You have gotten yourself mightily confused, the Constitution and BoR
in particular grants nothing, other than certain specific powers to
the government. It most certainly does not grant individual rights.
>males over 21 could vote and blacks, females and 18 year olds couldn't
>in 1800 is precisely the kind of rights that a constitution can give or
>withhold. To say that women actually "had" the right to vote since time
>began was of small practical comfort to them until the 19th Amendment.
They had these rights all the time, they just weren't recognized properly
at the time. Society is better today in many respects than it was before,
I postulate that it is precisely because of the wisdom and foresight
contained in the Constitution. For example, gun control has always been
racist in nature, especially against blacks but also Irish, Italian, and
Chinese. We have advanced enough that now anyone can get any gun they want,
regardless of their race, though they might have to move to a freer state,
which is OK because states should have to compete for citizens.
>> Since we as a society (the Constitution is actually a social contract
>> between the individuals) have not vested the exclusive power of arms in
>> government then naturally individuals have the right to own guns.
>
>Do you believe you have the right, as an individual sovereign, to
>voluntarily choose to grant or withold your allegience to the
>Constitution and the govt it established as you feel so inclined?
Absolutely I have that right. If I don't like it I can renounce my
citizenship and get my sorry ass out of the country. Failing that,
I don't get to pick and choose what I will or will not abide by in
the Constitution. The Constitution is a social contract among individuals
which vests certain enumerated powers in government and no more. The
chronic problem with governments is that they take more than they have
been allotted.
>Individuals may own arms, but the govt has the right to register them as
No, it is specificly illegal for government to register our arms. Secondly,
you just said, "...govt has the right..." again. Governments have no rights,
governments have only powers. How can you expect to converse intelligently
on the subject if you aren't going to use the correct terms? Only individuals
have rights.
>a matter of public safety and to inventory what is available to provide
Public safety is effective accomplished via zoning laws, no shooting within
city limited except in self defense, no storing your explosives and grenades
in your closet, but rather on appropriately zoned property in appropriately
constructed magazines.
>common defense, should the militia be called up. To claim a right to
There is no reason to inventory any of it, it is the citizen's civic
responsibility to be properly equipped and well-regulated (which _doesn't_
mean government controlled in 18th century English) in his skill of his
arms. If the militia is called then I am expected to show up properly
equipped and skilled, it's my civic duty, just like voting or jury duty.
To register and inventory would interfere with the restoration and continuitity
of lawful Constitutional governance because the would-be tyrants would know
where the weapons are.
>guns outside the accountability to and authority of the law, is to claim
>a pre-constitutional, eternally-revolutionary, state of nature right
>that is tantamount to insurrection against the constitution.
Gibberish. There is no language in the Constitution vesting government
with the power to control the arms of the citizenry. Powers which are
not granted to government are retained by the individual as individual
rights. Again, there is no right of insurrection against the Constitution,
but we do have the responsibility of maintaining lawful Constitutional
governance, through force of arms if necessary.
>> Government has only the powers that we give it, and the RKBA is not
>> one of them. Go ahead and look long and hard through the Constitution
>> and you will not find language there which vests the exclusive power
>> of arms into government. The BoR doesn't vest powers, it's all about
>> what powers specificly _aren't_ vested in government, i.e. individual
>> rights.
>
>And the first power we give up is individual sovereignty. We cede
Ridiculous. We are citizens, not subjects. We have vested a very
limited subset of our rights into government. Collective "rights"
are known as powers. Government may have that and no more, the rest
is reserved to the individual citizen. We may also vest other powers
in state governments, nothing wrong with that and as I said, states
should have to compete for citizens and besides, the states are nowhere
near as dangerous to Liberty as the federal government.
>supreme political power and supremacy to the "just powers" of the
>government of, by, and for the People.
>
>And I use the very words Hamilton used. (see below) But, true, it is not
>a separate entity, as the British Crown was (King/Subjects) but a
>republic (constitutional govt/citizens).
And Hamilton was against the BoR, what's your point?
>The consent to be governed means citizens put themselves under law and
>government and create sovereign public authority. The consent to be
Only to the extent of the specific and enumerated powers vested into
government. Secondly, "sovereign" doesn't apply, though it's a useful
concept when dealing with foreign states who don't, won't, or can't
understand the American idea of individual sovereignty. Unfortunately
it tends to cloud the terminology when discussing our domestic situation.
>governed does not create an ad hoc voluntary association. The founders
>were not impractical idealists or utopians or libertarians. Alexander
>Hamilton wrote in Federalist Paper No. 33:
>
>If individuals enter into a state of society, the laws of that society
>must be the supreme regulator of their conduct. If a number of political
>societies enter into a larger political society, the laws which the
>latter may enact, pursuant to the powers intrusted to it by its
>constitution, must necessarily be supreme over those societies and the
>individuals of whom they are composed. It would otherwise be a mere
>treaty, dependent on the good faith of the parties, and not a
>government, which is only another word for POLITICAL POWER AND
>SUPREMACY. [caps in original]
>
>James Madison said: "What is the meaning of government? An institution
>to make people do their duty. A government leaving it to a man to do his
>duty or not, as he pleases, would be a new species of government, or
>rather no government at all." (in the Virginia Ratification debates, 3
>Elliot's Debates 413)
So? Again, Madison was a federalist and was against the BoR. Granted,
he did a fine job on the Constitution but bogged down considerable
when it came to individual rights and sovereignty. His was not the
prevailing view in these matters.
>Further on in American history, President Lincoln said: "Perpetuity is
>implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national
Invoking the words of America's first tyrant isn't helping your case.
>governments." Chief Justice Edward Douglas White said: "A governmental
>power which has no sanction to it and which therefore can only be
>exercised provided the citizen consents to its exertions is in no
>substantial sense a power." This is not panty-waist Arcadian
I concur with White's opinion. That's not the issue. The issue is
the _extent_ of government's powers.
>wistfulness, but the kind of govt ready to send in the militia to put
>down insurrection, as Washington did in 1794.
>
>The Libertarian Party Platform states that the right to exercise force
>inheres in the individual. This is true in the State of Nature but not
>under law and government. James Wilson, one of the Framers of
Except that nowhere in the Constitution is the government vested with
the _exclusive_ power of force. The language just isn't there.
>Constitution, argued for ratification before Pennsylvania ratifying
>convention with the observation:
>
>Civil liberty is natural liberty itself, divested only of that part
>which, placed in the government, produces more good and happiness to the
>community than if it had remained in the individual. Hence it follows
>that civil liberty, while it resigns a part of natural liberty, retains
>the free and generous exercise of all the human faculties, so far as it
>is compatible with the public welfare. (2 Elliot's Debates 429)
What's your point? This is what I've been saying all along. By virtue
of our self-evident individual rights, we vest a part of our natural
liberty in governmental power. Regarding powers legitimately vested,
citizens don't get to pick and choose. Operative word: legitimately.
>The state of New Hampshire went so far as to write the fundamental
>concept into its 1784 Bill of Rights:
>
>When men enter into a state of society, they surrender up some of their
>natural rights to that society, in order to insure the protection of
>others; and, without such an equivalent, the surrender is void.
Keyword here is "some." Some rights are vested into governmental powers,
the rest are retained as individual rights and liberties.
>The first natural right they surrender up is Locke's "executive power of
>the law of nature." Otherwise, there is no political community, no "just
>powers" of government, and no political obligation.
Consent of the governed in other words. Your point?
>You also must look at how words were used: "to keep and bear arms" has
>military meaning; it doesn't just mean to possess and carry guns. To
>bear arms is to serve as a soldier does, in the army or militia. Yes,
>individuals "bear arms" but not in a vacuum, or in the sense of
>self-defense;
Oh come now, you buy this drivel? It's an effort to redefine words
and you know it. You are attempting to define "keep and bear" as
military terms which pertain only to soldiers while you cast me as
a non-soldier, a mere citizen or civilian so I can't possibly have
the RKBA. Nonsense, I am a citizen-soldier, a member of the several
militias and I certainly have the right to keep and bears arms in
defense of self, state and country. Says so right in my state and
federal Constitutions, not to mention 10 USC sec 311. Rather than
attempt to redefine words you might try to show me where specificly
the power of arms has been solely vested in government. It hasn't
and you know it.
<mercy snippage>
Best,
Jim
Steve Krulick
>
> In article <394D925C...@ulster.net>, Steve Krulick wrote:
> >axel heyst wrote:
> >
> >> Should government have the power to limit the kinds of weapons one owns?
> >> Does it have that power now?
> >
> >Yes. And yes.
>
> Incorrect.
Ah, that depends on what you interpret the question to mean. First,
you're starting with the assumption that govt means FEDERAL govt. The
questioner said GOVERNMENT. State and local govts HAVE and should have
the power to limit the kinds of weapons one can own, as a matter of
public safety and public order. For example, in the Morton Grove case,
the village of Morton Grove passed an ordinance to restrict handguns.
That law was found to be constitutional by the 7th Circuit US Court of
Appeals in 1982. But they went further then that. They said: "Under the
controlling authority of Miller we conclude that the right to keep and
bear handguns is not guaranteed by the second amendment. Because the
second amendment is not applicable to Morton Grove and because
possession of handguns by individuals is not part of the right to keep
and bear arms, Ordinance No. 81-11 does not violate the second
amendment." So according to the highest federal courts, the answer is
yes, yes, yes and yes.
>
> Actually, government _could_ have the power to limit the kinds of weapons
> we can own, if we gave it to them. We have not given them this power at
> the present time. The fact that they _think_ they have this power is
> irrelevant, because they do not have it legitimately.
The National Firearms Act of 1934, on which Miller revolved, was just
such a power on the national level. In US v. Tot, the 3rd Circuit Court
of Appeals said of Miller: "This was a prosecution under the National
Firearms Act of 1934 and the weapon, the possession of which had
occasioned the prosecution of the accused, was a shotgun of less than 18
inch barrel. The Court said that in the absence of evidence tending to
show that possession of such a gun at the time has some reasonable
relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated
militia, it could not be said that the Second Amendment guarantees the
right to keep such an instrument. The appellant here having failed to
show such a relationship, the same thing may be said as applied to the
pistol found in his possession." Later cases extended that to cover
machine guns and other specific weapons.
Of this Act, the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals said, in Cases v. US in
1943: "The Federal Firearms Act undoubtedly curtails to some extent the
right of individuals to keep and bear arms but it does not follow from
this as a necessary consequence that it is bad under the Second
Amendment which reads "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."
US v. Warin, in the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in 1976 said: "Since
the Second Amendment right "to keep and bear Arms" applies only to the
right of the State to maintain a militia and not to the individual's
right to bear arms, there can be no serious claim to any express
constitutional right of an individual to possess a firearm."
The fact that YOU think govt doesn't have this power is irrelevant,
because the courts say they do, and it's the courts job to interpret the
constitution and laws.
> However, in point of fact, the government _does_ have the power to limit
> certain types of weapons, such as sporting weapons. Hunting is not a
> Constitutional right so there's nothing wrong with sporting shotguns
> being required to use bismuth rather than lead shot, or hunting rifles
> being limited to 5 rounds and so on.
>
> But government has no Constitutional power to limit non-sporting weapons,
> read the Constitution, it just isn't there.
I can't be held responsible because you misread the constitution.
Federal govt is only limited, by the 2nd Amen and the militia clauses of
the constitution, from infringing on the states' rights to organize and
maintain state militias, with the states having the authority to appoint
officers.
>
> As to whether government _should_ have the power, well, that's debatable.
> It's certainly possible to vest government with that power, just pass a
> Constitutional amendment. If enough people agree and the proper procedure
> is followed we _can_ by virtue of our self-evident, pre-existing, _individual_
> RKBA vest government with the exclusive or nearly exclusive power of arms.
> I personally don't think that at this time it would be wise or desirable
> to do so, and at this time government assuredly does not have that power.
> Anyone who thinks the government is empowered to control what weapons
> we may keep and bear is welcome to post the language in the Constitution
> which vests this power in government. Hint: it's not the 2nd Amendment,
> the BoR is about individual rights, not powers that are vested in government.
> That's what the rest of the Constitution is all about, and the exclusive
> power of arms, or the power to control arms, just isn't there.
Hint: the so-called bill of rights is not about individuals per se or
what individuals can't do, but about what the Federal govt can't do; it
spells out the limits of its authority. You may, for simplicity's sake
call it a "civil right" to have, say, freedom of speech, but the actual
construct is that "Congress shall make no law abridging" free speech.
That is not the same thing as what you perceive to be a "self-evident,
pre-existing, individual" right, which would be a "natural right" in the
"State of Nature" or anarchy.
--------------------------
"Freedom is participation
in power." (Cicero)
--------------------------
jack
"Roger Denney" <rgde...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:39528826...@news.alt.net...
> The Second Amendment
>
> Does It Give You The Right To Own A Gun?
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The Second Amendment to the Constitution states, "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."
>
> At first glance, this provision seems to guarantee all citizens the right
to "keep
> and bear" the weapon of their choice. However, a careful look at the legal
and
> historical background of the Second Amendment proves otherwise. Unlike the
First
> Amendment, the Second Amendment begins with a qualifying statement that
limits the
> scope of the rest of the amendment. The Second Amendment contains an
expression of
> the purpose of the right: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to
the security
> of a free state..."
>
> The First Amendment, on the other hand, contains no such statement of
purpose
> serving to limit the scope of the rights guaranteed. Although Pro-gun
groups contend
> that the authors of the Constitution intended the Second Amendment to
protect the
> possession of arms, even absent a connection with the militia, judicial
precedents
> have proved that the courts feel otherwise. Throughout the history of our
nation, the
> United States Supreme Court and lower federal courts have consistently
held that the
> Second Amendment right to bear arms is related to "a well-regulated
militia."
>
> Article I, Section 8 authorizes Congress:
>
> "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
officers,
> and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline
prescribed by
> Congress."
>
> The absolutist view of the Second Amendment, argued by some opponents of
regulation
> of firearms, has not been sustained by a single U.S. Supreme Court or
lower court
> decision in our nation's history, while a series of Supreme Court and
lower federal
> court decisions has uniformly upheld regulation of private arms. No
legislation
> regulating the private ownership of firearms has ever been struck down on
Second
> Amendment grounds
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
>
> There are some very well financed "Independent" studies proving that the
crime rate
> has decreased in states with Right to Carry laws. What they fail to
mention is that
> the decrease in gun related crime is a national statistic. Crime rates
have fallen
> off in all states, including those without Right to Carry laws. In fact,
gun related
> deaths are higher in Right to Carry states than in states without Right to
Carry
> laws.
>
> So, it seems that Right to Carry laws don't play any significant part in
overall
> national crime statistics. It's interesting to note that there are many
reasons for
> this. It's not a simple fix, but the most obvious things to point out are
the things
> that are common to all the states. First of all would be the economy.
Crime rates
> historically decline during good economic times. All the states are now
benefiting
> from a robust National economy.
>
> The second thing to point out is that many states have had Right to Carry
laws for
> quite some time but gun related crimes didn't start to decline until
shortly after
> passage of the "Brady Bill" and other gun control legislation. It's a
shame that the
> actions of a few cause inconveniences for the rest of us but that's the
way it is.
> Trigger locks, background checks and waiting periods are a small price to
pay for a
> decrease in gun related deaths.
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
>
> As for the second amendment.
>
> The U.S. Conference of Mayors decided not to file a joint lawsuit against
the
> firearms industry in an effort to reduce gun violence in the cities. The
decision
> instead was to set up a task force with the gun makers to find a solution
to the
> problem. However, this doesn't mean that some cities, which don't want to
wait years
> for a task force recommendation, won't sue on their own. Chicago has been
seriously
> considering doing just that. Officials there want gun distributors and
marketers to
> take steps to prevent handguns from being sold or possessed in their city.
>
> That's actually the law in Chicago. You can't sell or possess a handgun
there. I'm
> sure if you didn't know about Chicago's gun-control laws you are screaming
something
> about the "Second Amendment." How can Chicago take away their citizens'
right to bear
> arms, you ask?
>
> Well, the answer is easy. Chicago isn't infringing on a Constitutional
right to bear
> arms because it doesn't exist.
>
> NRA followers are probably frothing at the mouth by now, but stop and
think for
> yourself for a change. If the Second Amendment really guaranteed private
citizens the
> right to bear arms, don't you think the NRA would have overturned
Chicago's
> no-handgun law by now?
>
> Just take a few deep breaths and think about that.
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
>
> If the Second Amendment did guaranty the individuals right to keep and
bear arms it
> would easily get the votes needed to repeal it because it would mean
everyone could
> legally own missiles with nuclear warheads. The Second Amendment does not
limit the
> type of arms. Because they referred to the Militia, it would mean any and
all
> military arms.
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
>
> The gun lobby has perpetuated several myths about the Second Amendment
that it uses
> to justify its positions - and sell guns. These myths have been used to
lull the
> public into apathy and inaction - and to sell guns. Here are some of the
most common
> myths and arguments that you can use to disprove them.
>
> MYTH #1: The Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees an individual
> right to own and carry a gun.
>
> FACT: The gun lobby focuses on the second half of the Second Amendment
when they
> make this argument. In doing so it misinterprets the meaning of the
amendment. The
> Second Amendment is designed to give the states the right to form and
maintain a"well
> regulated militia" to provide for the security of the state and as
supplement to the
> police. It and is not meant to ensure an individual right to bear arms.
The amendment
> means what it says - in its entirety.
>
> The National Guard, created in 1903, is the modern equivalent of an
organized state
> militia. The members of the National Guard are provided with arms when
called into
> duty and are not required to privately own firearms for service. This view
that the
> Second Amendment is a group rather than an individual right has been
upheld by the
> United States Supreme Court as well as lower federal courts. In fact, no
law
> restricting the ownership of private arms has ever been struck down on
Second
> Amendment grounds.
>
> The Supreme Court decided in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174,
that
> possession of a firearm is not protected by the Second Amendment unless it
has "some
> reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well
regulated
> militia."
>
> The Supreme Court has stated that today's militia is the National Guard.
>
> That decision, by the Supreme Court, is the law of the land.
>
> We challenge those who claim that the Federal government does not have the
right to
> restrict the private ownership of firearms to file a lawsuit against the
Federal
> government, on Second Amendment basis, to overthrow the Brady Bill and/or
the ban on
> assault guns.
>
> MYTH #2: The Founding Fathers of this nation intended to give every
> individual the right to own firearms.
>
> FACT: The constitution was drafted in 1787 by delegates from the former
colonies
> appointed for the purpose. There was much discussion, comments, and
disagreements
> about all parts of the constitution, including the second amendment. Like
any
> political document , drafting the constitution required compromises
between the
> different views of those who were given the task of drafting the document.
It had to
> be ratified by the states before going into effect.
>
> The states clearly wanted to maintain their militias. They feared armed
rebellions by
> organizations within their state. This had already happened in
Massachusetts just one
> year before the convention convened. In 1786, the "Shays" rebellion was
put down by
> the state militia. Keeping strong, well regulated state militias was of
great
> interest to many delegates.
>
> Recent research by noted historians support the argument that the states
which
> permitted slavery greatly feared an armed rebellion by slaves and wanted
to be
> prepared to deal with it. It must be kept in mind when reading high-toned
> pronouncements by some leaders of the time that many of the most vocal
represented
> "slave" states and were themselves owners of slaves. Their state
governments and
> their livelihood depended on maintaining the institution of slavery.
>
> Those who quote Thomas Jefferson should be aware that he was from a
"slave" state,
> Virginia, owned slaves, and did not attend the constitution convention.
>
>
> Though certain individuals among our Founding Fathers may have believed in
an
> individual right to the ownership of arms, the Second Amendment did not
reflect
> this. Once again, although certain individuals among the writers of the
constitution
> may have believed in an individual right to own and bear arms, the
resulting document
> of the group as a whole did not reflect this view of firearm ownership.
>
>
> MYTH #3: The solution to oppression and totalitarian government is for all
> citizens to own guns.
>
> FACT: The gun lobby often cites the Holocaust, violence in Bosnia, hunger
in Somalia,
> and racism in the U.S. as problems that would have been or could be
overcome if those
> being oppressed were armed. While guns may add a personal sense of
security, the
> realities of war and relative power show that it is impossible for a few
armed
> citizens to overthrow an organized army.
>
> In W.W.II, Germany was able to overrun several nations with armed
militaries and
> resistance (e.g. Poland and France) before a coalition of nations was able
to stop
> and defeat them. Several nations which have restrictions on firearms have
not fallen
> into the throes of tyranny (e.g. Japan, Canada, and Britain, Australia).
>
> No legislation regulating the private ownership of firearms has ever been
> struck down on Second Amendment grounds.
>
> Although you hear a lot of rhetoric about second amendment rights from the
NRA, they
> know the law and they have enough money to spend on lawyers to know that
the Bill of
> Rights does not guaranty the individuals right to possess firearms. If it
did the
> NRA would have all regulation struck down on Second Amendment grounds.
>
> Like anything else that is not in the Bill of Rights, owning a gun is only
> legal if there is no law preventing it.
>
> The opinion of anti-regulation people on one side - Supreme Court rulings
on the
> other.
>
> Guess who wins?
>
> The Second Amendment is a dead end for anti gun-regulation advocates.
>
>
>
Docky Wocky
regulation of firearms, has not been sustained by a single U.S. Supreme
Court or
_______________________
The supreme court did not do away with slavery, either.
Would you imagine that the supreme court is not on the side of government?
In fact, the major history of the supreme court decision process is sort of
absolutist pro-government...of which they are a small part...and therefore
unable to give with an unbiased opinion. Can you name one supreme court
justice who ever quit in protest?
Marksman
"Roger Denney" <rgde...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:39528826...@news.alt.net...
> The Second Amendment
>
> Does It Give You The Right To Own A Gun?
Yes.
Marksman
"Albert Isham" <ais...@ne.infi.net> wrote in message
news:8iil6e$bd3$3...@nw001t.infi.net...
> In article <394CC2C9...@mindspring.com>, georgann says...
> >
> >georgann wrote:
> >
> >YES.
> >
> And the question was; Does the Second Amendment only apply to the states?
>
Nope, to the people. Read it.
Marksman
"Steve Krulick" <kry...@ulster.net> wrote in message
news:394D478F...@ulster.net...
> georgann wrote:
> >
> > > Georgann:
> > I was attempting to point out that when challenged on
> > individual vs militia "right" the SC has come down on the side
> > of individual ownership. I was not really talking about states
> > in this matter at all.
> >
> ALL the Circuits and Courts of Appeals, that there is no absolute
> relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated
>
Wrong again!
Lee Harrison
at mark...@juno.com wrote on 6/19/00 12:45 PM:
>> And the question was; Does the Second Amendment only apply to the states?
> Nope, to the people. Read it.
Why don't you show me in the original debates in Congress where the militia
amendment protects your personal gun use rather than the right of the
militia to keep and bear arms?
Take a look at the House, August 17, 1789. Gerry tells you exactly what the
militia amendment is intended to protect and prevent.
Here's the URL, when LOC fixes the broken links:
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&rec
Num=390
____________________
IN CONVENTION.
September 17, 1787.
Sir: We have now the honor to submit to the consideration of the United
States, in Congress assembled, that Constitution which has appeared to us
the most advisable.
The friends of our country have long seen and desired that the power of
making war, peace, and treaties that of levying money, and regulating
commerce and the correspondent executive and judicial authorities,--should
be fully and effectually vested in the general government of the Union but
the impropriety of delegating such extensive trust to one body of men is
evident hence results the necessity of a different organization.
It is obviously impracticable, in the federal government of these states, to
secure all rights of independent sovereignty to each, and yet provide for
the interest and safety of all. Individuals entering into society must give
up a share of liberty to preserve the rest. The magnitude of the sacrifice
must depend as well on situation and circumstance, as on the object to be
obtained. It is at all times difficult to draw with precision the line
between those rights which must be surrendered, and those which may be
reserved and, on the present occasion, this difficulty was increased by a
difference among the several states as to their situation, extent, habits,
and particular interests.
In all our deliberations on this subject, we kept steadily in our view, that
which appears to us the greatest interest of every true American, the
consolidation of our Union, in which is involved our prosperity, felicity,
safety--perhaps our national existence. This important consideration,
seriously and deeply impressed on our minds, led each state in the
Convention to be less rigid, on points of inferior magnitude, than might
have been otherwise expected and thus the Constitution which we now present
is the result of a spirit of amity, and of that mutual deference and
concession which the peculiarity of our political situation rendered
indispensable.
That it will meet the full and entire approbation of every state, is not
perhaps to be expected but each will doubtless consider that, had her
interest alone been consulted, the consequences might have been particularly
disagreeable or injurious to others that it is liable to as few exceptions
as could reasonably have been expected, we hope and believe that it may
promote the lasting welfare of that country so dear to us all, and secure
her freedom and happiness, is our most ardent wish.
With great respect, we have the honor to be, sir, your Excellency's most
obedient and humble servants. By the unanimous order of the Convention.
Go. WASHINGTON, President.
His Excellency, the President of Congress.
The Lone Weasel
Not-So-Secret-Hideout
http://leeharrison.simplenet.com/weasel/index.html
My Weasel Board
http://leeharrison.simplenet.com/weasel/bboard.mv
Petition To Require NICS Background Checks On All Gun Sales
http://leeharrison.simplenet.com/weasel/nics.mv
Lee Harrison
wrote on 6/19/00 12:32 PM:
> "The absolutist view of the Second Amendment, argued by some opponents of
> regulation of firearms, has not been sustained by a single U.S. Supreme
> Court or
> lower court decision in our nation's history..."
> _______________________
>
> The supreme court did not do away with slavery, either.
But the federal government did end slavery, and nothing else could have done
it.
> Would you imagine that the supreme court is not on the side of government?
You're aware that the Second Amendment is on the side of government, and
prevents Congress from disarming the state militias? In fact, we're
discussing legal issues, not somebody's bullshit opinions.
Care to try the natural rights ploy?
Steve Krulick
Once again, a blanket denial of a provable statement of fact, without a
single cite to disprove it. At least so-called Marksman didn't do his
usual petulant "you're being childish and I won't play anymore" excuse
for not rising to the challenge. So again I'll point to an actual court
decision, and let's see if so-called Marksman can take aim at it and
come somewhere near the barn's broad side.
In just the 4th Circuit alone: In Love v. Peppersack, 47 F.3d 120 (4th
Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 813 (1995), an applicant for the purchase
of a handgun filed a 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 action against police officers
involved in the denial of her application alleging, among other things,
that her right "to keep and bear" a handgun had been violated. Like the
Emerson/Cummings trial, the applicant cited a number of law review
articles in support of her Second Amendment claim. After noting the
Second Amendment did not apply to the states, the court stated the
Amendment did not "confer an absolute individual right to bear any type
of firearm." Referring to Miller, the court stated that: "Since then,
the lower federal courts have uniformly held that the Second Amendment
preserves a collective, rather than individual, right." Ultimately, the
Fourth Circuit disposed of the Second Amendment challenge by recognizing
that "courts have consistently held that the Second Amendment only
confers a collective right of keeping and bearing arms which must bear a
'reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well
regulated militia.'"
I have cited nearly a dozen major courts decisions on these NGs and they
say the same thing.
----------------------------
"reasonable relationship to
the preservation or
efficiency of a
well regulated militia."
----------------------------
Steve Krulick
No, not independent of "some reasonable relationship to the preservation
or efficiency of a well regulated militia." If you think otherwise, take
it up with Supreme Court and ALL the US Court of Appeals Circuits. They
have ruled consistently for 60 years that that is the meaning of the 2nd
Amen.
--------------------------------------------
Criminals, grabbers, and thugs, OH MY!!
Criminals, grabbers, and thugs, OH MY!!!!
Criminals, grabbers, and thugs, OH MY!!!!!!
--------------------------------------------
Iconoclast
>From: pla...@not.replyable.com (Jim String)
>Subject: Re: The Second Amendment: Does It Give You The Right To Own A Gun?
>Date: 19 Jun 2000 04:29:45 GMT
>But government has no Constitutional power to limit non-sporting weapons,
>read the Constitution, it just isn't there.
So if I can build an atomic bomb in my garage, it's OK --
so long as I don't use it to hunt deer?? IC
Caruso
I have read the same Transcripts and dissagree with your findings!
What part of People can't you Understand?
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State.But
the amendment went on to say.
(The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.)
PEOPLE meaning( American Citizen's)
As with our First Amendment, the
text of the Second is broad enough to protect rights of discrete individuals
or minorities; but the Amendment's core concerns are populism and
federalism
Caruso NRA Gun&Hunter Safety!
www.nra.org
"Steve Krulick" <kry...@ulster.net> wrote in message
news:394D478F...@ulster.net...
> georgann wrote:
> >
> > > Georgann:
> > I was attempting to point out that when challenged on
> > individual vs militia "right" the SC has come down on the side
> > of individual ownership. I was not really talking about states
> > in this matter at all.
> >
> Never! The Supreme Court has consistently held, since 1939, and so have
> ALL the Circuits and Courts of Appeals, that there is no absolute
> individual right to possesses firearms independent of the "reasonable
> relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated
> militia." That's the law; get used to it.
>
> In just the 4th Circuit alone: In Love v. Peppersack, 47 F.3d 120 (4th
> Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 813 (1995), an applicant for the purchase
> of a handgun filed a 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 action against police officers
> involved in the denial of her application alleging, among other things,
> that her right "to keep and bear" a handgun had been violated. Like the
> Emerson/Cummings trial, the applicant cited a number of law review
> articles in support of her Second Amendment claim. After noting the
> Second Amendment did not apply to the states, the court stated the
> Amendment did not "confer an absolute individual right to bear any type
> of firearm." Referring to Miller, the court stated that: "Since then,
> the lower federal courts have uniformly held that the Second Amendment
> preserves a collective, rather than individual, right." Ultimately, the
> Fourth Circuit disposed of the Second Amendment challenge by recognizing
> that "courts have consistently held that the Second Amendment only
> confers a collective right of keeping and bearing arms which must bear a
> 'reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well
> regulated militia.'"
>
> I have cited nearly a dozen major courts decisions on these NGs and they
> say the same thing.
>
> > georgann wrote:
> > To your last comment, you could also go to the cities where
> > guns are supposedly banned (like NYC) and simply wait to be
> > accosted by a criminal with one.
>
> I lived in NYC for decades, and still go there regularly for business; I
> have never been accosted by a criminal, with or without a gun. Anytime
> of day or night, in neighborhoods of every ethnicity, in Central Park or
> the subways, alone or in groups. I'm tired of waiting! I've also never
> been called "whitey," "kike" or any other epithet. Am I missing
> something, or am I just walking around in a protective karma bubble?
>
> ----------------------------
> "reasonable relationship to
> the preservation or
> efficiency of a
> well regulated militia."
> ----------------------------
"Steve Krulick" <kry...@ulster.net> wrote in message
news:394D85D7...@ulster.net...
> Jim Patrick wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 18:05:03 -0400, Steve Krulick <kry...@ulster.net>
wrote:
> >
> > >Never! The Supreme Court has consistently held, since 1939, and so have
> > >ALL the Circuits and Courts of Appeals, that there is no absolute
> > >individual right to possesses firearms independent of the "reasonable
> > >relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated
> > >militia." That's the law; get used to it.
> >
> > "You're misreading the 1939 Miller case." --- Harold R. DeMoss Jr.
>
> Sez you and DeMoss, whoever he is.
>
> Read my post in this thread that clearly and unambiguously spells out
> how the highest federal courts have consistently read Miller for 60
> years.
>
> It's them vs. you.
>
> I'll side with them.
>
> ----------------------------
> "reasonable relationship to
> the preservation or
> efficiency of a
> well regulated militia."
> ----------------------------
Lee Harrison
bru...@nmo.net wrote on 6/19/00 5:19 PM:
> What part of People can't you Understand?
"A state or nation is a body politic, or society of men, united together for
the purpose of promoting their mutual safety and advantage by their combined
strength. By the very act of civil and political association, each citizen
subjects himself to the authority of the whole; and the authority of all
over each member essentially belongs to the body politic."
Joseph Story, Commentary on the Constitution of the United States, Book II,
History of the Revolution and the Confederation, Chapter 1, The Revolution.
pp 191-92.
Glenworthy@xteleport.com Henry Glenworthy
news:WhoamI.529...@WhereamI.com...
>>>>
If you could build an atomic bomb in your garage, Saddam Hussein would
pay you big bucks for you to visit Baghdad.
--
"We've got the Uzis out of the classroom and the bullets
out of the police officers." W.J.Clinton - 06-30-95
"We have the highest ethical standards in this White
House, you can be assured of that." A. Gore - 1995
"The obscure we see eventually, the completely
apparent takes a little longer." Edward R. Murrow
-------------------------------------------
Marksman
"Lee Harrison" <lee...@amaonline.com> wrote in message
news:B573E3C6.1CB8%lee...@amaonline.com...
> in article uTt35.11931$ds.3...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net,
Marksman
> at mark...@juno.com wrote on 6/19/00 12:45 PM:
>
> >> And the question was; Does the Second Amendment only apply to the
states?
>
> > Nope, to the people. Read it.
>
> Why don't you show me in the original debates in Congress where the
militia
> amendment protects your personal gun use rather than the right of the
> militia to keep and bear arms?
Don't need to. The 2nd covers it. Read it sometime.
Marksman
> Marksman wrote:
> >
> > "Steve Krulick" <kry...@ulster.net> wrote in message
> > news:394D478F...@ulster.net...
> > > georgann wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Georgann:
> > > > I was attempting to point out that when challenged on
> > > > individual vs militia "right" the SC has come down on the side
> > > > of individual ownership. I was not really talking about states
> > > > in this matter at all.
> > > >
> > > Never! The Supreme Court has consistently held, since 1939, and so
have
> > > ALL the Circuits and Courts of Appeals, that there is no absolute
> > > individual right to possesses firearms independent of the "reasonable
> > > relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated
> > > militia." That's the law; get used to it.
> > >
> >
>
> Once again, a blanket denial of a provable statement of fact, without a
> single cite to disprove it.
Don't need to refute it. Do you have a problem reading the 2nd?
Marksman
> Marksman wrote:
> >
> > "Roger Denney" <rgde...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:39528826...@news.alt.net...
> > >
> > > Does It Give You The Right To Own A Gun?
> >
>
> No, not independent of "some reasonable relationship to the preservation
> or efficiency of a well regulated militia."
Wrong again.
Steve Krulick
>
> I think you have been Drinking to much Miller!
> I have read the same Transcripts and dissagree with your findings!
Which transcripts? The Court of Appeals decisions since Miller? For
example, what part of this paragraph from US v. Tot, Third Circuit Court
of Appeals, 1942, can't you understand:
"It is abundantly clear both from the discussions of this amendment
contemporaneous with its proposal and adoption and those of learned
writers since that this amendment, unlike those providing for protection
of free speech and freedom of religion, was not adopted with individual
rights in mind, but as a protection for the States in the maintenance of
their militia organizations against possible encroachments by the
federal power."
> What part of People can't you Understand?
Do you mean the part in US v. Verdugo-Urquidez that says "the people"
"refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or
who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to
be considered part of that community."? The "class of persons" referred
to in the 2nd Amen -- and note that "class" is a COLLECTIVE term -- were
able-bodied, property-owning white males approx. 18-45 who weren't in
prison and who were enrolled (registered, along with their weapons) in
the state-run and maintained militia. At no time was their right to
"bear arms" [which is a military reference that every 18th Century
educated person would know meant "to serve in the militia or army," as
proven by the use of the term by Madison in his original draft of the
amendment to allow for conscientious objectors: "The right of the people
to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well
regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no
person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to
render military service in person."] used in any sense other than a
military one, and it is inconceivable that Madison's meaning in the
first part would be different than his meaning in the second part
(unless you think Quakers may have had religious scruples about "bearing
arms" to shoot turkeys). That the final version was made more narrow in
scope, and focussed on the militia by putting it first, and used FOUR
commas to allow the infringement clause to link back to the militia
clause, shows what the ratifiers as a consensus group REALLY were after.
>
> A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State.But
> the amendment went on to say.
> (The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.)
> PEOPLE meaning( American Citizen's)
See above. Also, if you don't chop up the ENTIRE 2nd Amen, as you have
here, the sentence could just as easily mean, thanks to the commas, "A
well regulated Militia... shall not be infringed." which is how EVERY
Court of Appeals Circuit has interpreted Miller for 60 years.
As in US v. Hale (1992): "The purpose of the Second Amendment is to
restrain the federal government from regulating the possession of arms
where such regulation would interfere with the preservation or
efficiency of the militia. Whether the "right to bear arms" for militia
purposes is "individual" or "collective" in nature is irrelevant where,
as here, the individual's possession of arms is not related to the
preservation or efficiency of a militia."
Or Hickman v. Block (1996): "Consulting the text and history of the
amendment, the [Supreme] Court found [in US v. Miller] that the right to
keep and bear arms is meant solely to protect the right of the states to
keep and maintain armed militia." And: "The Court's understanding
follows a plain reading of the Amendment's text. The Amendment's second
clause declares that the goal is to preserve the security of "a free
state;" its first clause establishes the premise that a "well-regulated
militia" is necessary to this end. Thus it is only in furtherance of
state security that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is
finally proclaimed."
Or Quilici v. Morton Grove (1982) "The second amendment provides that "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."
U.S. Const. amend. II. Construing this language according to its plain
meaning, it seems clear that the right to bear arms is inextricably
connected to the preservation of a militia."(QUILICI v. VILLAGE OF
MORTON GROVE)
> As with our First Amendment, the
> text of the Second is broad enough to protect rights of discrete individuals
> or minorities; but the Amendment's core concerns are populism and
> federalism
In Cases v. US (1942), individuals are not the issue: "Apparently, then,
under the Second Amendment, the federal government can limit the keeping
and bearing of arms by a single individual as well as by a group of
individuals,"
The 2nd Amen's core concerns are that a state-run militia is superior to
a standing army.
I could go on and on, but either you can grasp what is being said here
by now, or I'm wasting my time trying to get through a wall of
defensiveness that comes from letting other people interpret what you
can read for yourself; the hoplophile pseudoscholars are like Groucho
Marx's quote: "Who are you going to believe... me or your own eyes?"!
> > > > Georgann:
> > > I was attempting to point out that when challenged on
> > > individual vs militia "right" the SC has come down on the side
> > > of individual ownership. I was not really talking about states
> > > in this matter at all.
> > >
> > Never! The Supreme Court has consistently held, since 1939, and so have
> > ALL the Circuits and Courts of Appeals, that there is no absolute
> > individual right to possesses firearms independent of the "reasonable
> > relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated
> > militia." That's the law; get used to it.
> >
> > In just the 4th Circuit alone: In Love v. Peppersack, 47 F.3d 120 (4th
> > Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 813 (1995), an applicant for the purchase
> > of a handgun filed a 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 action against police officers
> > involved in the denial of her application alleging, among other things,
> > that her right "to keep and bear" a handgun had been violated. Like the
> > Emerson/Cummings trial, the applicant cited a number of law review
> > articles in support of her Second Amendment claim. After noting the
> > Second Amendment did not apply to the states, the court stated the
> > Amendment did not "confer an absolute individual right to bear any type
> > of firearm." Referring to Miller, the court stated that: "Since then,
> > the lower federal courts have uniformly held that the Second Amendment
> > preserves a collective, rather than individual, right." Ultimately, the
> > Fourth Circuit disposed of the Second Amendment challenge by recognizing
> > that "courts have consistently held that the Second Amendment only
> > confers a collective right of keeping and bearing arms which must bear a
> > 'reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well
> > regulated militia.'"
> >
> > I have cited nearly a dozen major courts decisions on these NGs and they
> > say the same thing.
I usually reference each cite separately, but just go to:
http://www.2ndlawlib.org/court/fed/
for the major cases.
----------------------------
"reasonable relationship to
the preservation or
efficiency of a
well regulated militia."
----------------------------
Steve Krulick
>
> "Steve Krulick" <kry...@ulster.net> wrote in message
> news:394E894C...@ulster.net...
> > Marksman wrote:
> > >
> > > "Roger Denney" <rgde...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:39528826...@news.alt.net...
> > > > The Second Amendment
> > > >
> > > > Does It Give You The Right To Own A Gun?
> > >
> > > Yes.
> >
> > or efficiency of a well regulated militia."
>
Once, just once, I'd like to see an actual, unchallenged, in-force court
ruling that backs up your unsubstantiated opinion. Your "Wrong again"
and 1$ will get you on the bus.
--------------------------
"Nothing can stop
the power of
an informed citizenry
when it is
empowered, organized, and
motivated." (Ralph Nader)
--------------------------
Steve Krulick
That suggestion only works for people who can UNDERSTAND what they're
reading. So-called Marksman once again refuses to back up his opinion
with unambiguous and credible authority. He says the 2nd Amen means what
HE says it means, and that's that. No amount of evidence will sway him.
How admirable!
--
Jim Patrick
>And they said in clear words what they interpreted Miller to mean, and
>they all agree on the basics.
See "circle-jerk" below.
>ARE YOU STILL NOT PAYING ATTENTION: The cases didn't HAVE TO go to the
>SCOTUS. They found that the 2nd Amen was not violated by any of the laws
>in question, therefore the laws stood as constitutional. Obviously the
>judges, in every circuit and over 60 years, liverall or concernative,
>north or south, are able to read plain English and come to the same
>conclusion.
And you cite (legitimately) Appeals courts that cite as authority.... other
Appellate Court decisions that are based on ..... other Appellate decisions.
It's called a "circle-jerk".
No matter how well intentioned, it doesn't cite what the actual decision of
the Supreme court was. (Hell, one of your "cites" doesn't even use the
decision, they used the abstract written by a clerk as the basis of their
"decision")
Your argument boils down in the end -- no matter what face you put on it --
to
"...[so you are arguing] that the 2nd amendment means that the militia
alone has the right to guns, [and] that the 2nd amendment was written
to guarantee that SOLDIERS can have guns" [?]
Mateja (for the US) replied, "Yes."
Both you and the previous appellate courts have the dubious distinction of
claiming the Second Amendment says "Government soldiers have a right to guns".
Jim Patrick
___________________________________________________
"A right delayed is a right denied" - Martin Luther King Jr.
ยฏยฏยฏยฏยฏยฏยฏยฏยฏยฏยฏยฏยฏยฏยฏยฏยฏยฏยฏยฏยฏยฏยฏยฏยฏยฏยฏยฏยฏยฏยฏยฏยฏยฏยฏยฏยฏยฏยฏยฏยฏยฏยฏยฏยฏยฏยฏยฏยฏยฏยฏ
rosebud_genitals
than the 4th Amendment gives anyone the "right" to be free from ubiquitous
unreasonable search and seizure, or the 8th Amendment gives anyone the
"right" to a speedy trial. The Bill of Rights is a piece of paper, easily
ignored and too roughly textured to be useful as toilet tissue. We have the
rights we are willing to assert and willing to defend, and the rights
government is grudgingly willing to let us enjoy. No more, no less.
"Verily I say unto you, inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of
the least of these my brethern, ye have done it unto me."
,___, ___ ___ --Matthew 25:40
_/ \ // \\
|/=\\, _ // _ _ \\ "Too bad that in the
/|| // /'\\ _-_, _^_ // \ \\ \\ / \\ 21st century, religion is
\||/\\ || || ||_. || \\ || || || || || || still used to bolster ugly
|| \\ || || ~ || ||-/ || || || || || || discriminatory laws."
,_][_, \\\\,/ ,-_- \\__/ \\/ \\/\\ \// --Eve DuJardin
__ ,
"I will trust the ,-| ~ ,, ,,
fundamentalists, as a ('||/__, _ ~ || __ ||
group, as soon as they (( ||| | _^_ \\/\\ \\ =||= /, \\ || _-_,
stop trying to take (( |||==| || \\ || || || || /-|| || ||_.
over my government." ( / | , ||-/ || || || || || || || ~ ||
--Xiphias Gladius -____/ \\__/ \\ \\ \\ \\, \\/\ \\ ,-_-
My favorite phrases are "I was wrong," "I don't know," and "It
can be fixed." No excuses and no bullshit please. I really hate
when someone tries to explain how everybody else has a share of
the blame to try to move the focus away from their responsibility.
Responsibility can't be forced on you, you have to take it."
--John Chapman
Jim Patrick
>...After noting the
>Second Amendment did not apply to the states, the court stated the
>Amendment did not "confer an absolute individual right to bear any type
>of firearm."
Affirming "the right of government to arm its soldiers" Hahahahahaha
>Referring to Miller, the court stated that: "Since then,
>the lower federal courts have uniformly held that the Second Amendment
>preserves a collective, rather than individual, right."
Uhh, other courts affirming "government's right to arm its soldiers"
>......Ultimately, the
>Fourth Circuit disposed of the Second Amendment challenge by recognizing
>that "courts have consistently held that the Second Amendment only
>confers a collective right of keeping and bearing arms which must bear a
>'reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well
>regulated militia.'"
LOL, the Fourth, by their admission, can't uphold their own decision, and
depend on appeal to popular opinion.
>I have cited nearly a dozen major courts decisions on these NGs and they
>say the same thing.
They haven't all said the same thing, and those that do are incestuous.
It's called "collective hallucination", a sign of "collective thinking".
Cite a current case?
Caruso
Caruso NRA Gun&Hunter Safety!
www.nra.org
"Lee Harrison" <lee...@amaonline.com> wrote in message
news:B57416CB.210B%lee...@amaonline.com...
> in article 394e9c5f$0$1495$2486...@news.freeway.net, Caruso at
> bru...@nmo.net wrote on 6/19/00 5:19 PM:
>
> > What part of People can't you Understand?
>
Steve Krulick
>
> On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 16:52:20 -0400, Steve Krulick <kry...@ulster.net> wrote:
> >...After noting the
> >Second Amendment did not apply to the states, the court stated the
> >Amendment did not "confer an absolute individual right to bear any type
> >of firearm."
>
> Affirming "the right of government to arm its soldiers" Hahahahahaha
Do you always just make things up? This has nothing to do with "the
right of government to arm its soldiers."
Why can't you just deal with the words in front of your eyes?
>
> >Referring to Miller, the court stated that: "Since then,
> >the lower federal courts have uniformly held that the Second Amendment
> >preserves a collective, rather than individual, right."
>
> Uhh, other courts affirming "government's right to arm its soldiers"
No, that the purpose of the 2nd Amen was to keep the feds from
infringing on the states' authority, and that the right to bear arms was
not the right of an individual to own a firearm independent of serving
in a militia.
> >......Ultimately, the
> >Fourth Circuit disposed of the Second Amendment challenge by recognizing
> >that "courts have consistently held that the Second Amendment only
> >confers a collective right of keeping and bearing arms which must bear a
> >'reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well
> >regulated militia.'"
>
> LOL, the Fourth, by their admission, can't uphold their own decision, and
> depend on appeal to popular opinion.
Do you have the slightest idea how the judicial system works? Do you
know what "stare decisis" is?
>
> >I have cited nearly a dozen major courts decisions on these NGs and they
> >say the same thing.
>
> They haven't all said the same thing, and those that do are incestuous.
> It's called "collective hallucination", a sign of "collective thinking".
> Cite a current case?
Sure. How about YOU citing ANY case that says otherwise! You REALLY
don't understand the law or the courts, do you?
From the Federal Prosecutor's brief in US v. Emerson to the US Court of
Appeals, Fifth District:
http://www.saf.org/EmersonAppealGovt1.html
Federal Courts Have Uniformly Rejected Emerson And Its Rationale In
Challenges To Section 922(g)(8)'s Constitutionality
Set forth below is an outline of the five cases decided postEmerson in
which federal courts have uniformly rejected Emerson and/or similar
challenges to Section 922(g)(8)'s constitutionality:
(1) United States v. Spruill, 61 F. Supp. 2d 587 (W.D. Tex. 1999): Judge
Ferguson of the Midland-Odessa Division rejected a challenge to Section
922(g)(8)'s constitutionality noting renewed debate on both sides and
the Emerson decision.
The court stated that, without further guidance from the Supreme Court,
it would follow the majority in holding the Second Amendment did not
prohibit the imposition of restrictions on private gun ownership.
(2) United States v. Henry, No. 2:98-CR-057 (N.D. Tex. October 14, 1999)
(unpublished): Judge Robinson of the Amarillo Division rejected a
similar constitutional attack on Section 922(g)(8) based on Second and
Fifth Amendment grounds. A copy of this unpublished decision, as well as
the separate Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Averitte (in
which he independently rejects Emerson) is attached as Appendix 5.
(3) United States v. Baker, 197 F.3d 211 (6th Cir. 1999): In rejecting a
challenge to Section 922(g)(8) under the Due Process Clause, the Sixth
Circuit determined the defendant had no fundamental right to possess a
firearm because the Second Amendment did not guarantee a personal right
to bear arms. As such, the court applied a rational basis review in
concluding the statute rationally related to the government's legitimate
interest in curtailing the incidence of domestic violence.
(4) United States v. Henson, 55 F.Supp. 2d 528 (S.D. W. Va. 1999): Where
the defendant merely attached a copy of the Emerson decision in support
of his motion to dismiss, the court flatly rejected Emerson in holding
that (i) "the Second Amendment only confers a collective right of
keeping and bearing arms which must bear a 'reasonable relationship to
the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia'" and (ii)
Section 922(g)(8) "does not violate the notice and fair warning
principles embodied in the Fifth Amendment because of the 'fundamental
principle' that ignorance of the law is no excuse.'"
(5) United States v. Visnich, 65 F.Supp. 2d 669 (N.D. Ohio 1999): Court
determined Section 922(g)(8) did not violate defendant's Second
Amendment rights because he had no individual right to possess a
firearm. The court also rejected a due process challenge.
----------------------------
"reasonable relationship to
the preservation or
efficiency of a
well regulated militia."
----------------------------
Steve Krulick
>
> Do you have a problem reading the 2nd?
You don't seem to grasp the point Lee is making; I look forward to how
you will avoid addressing my response on a separte posting.
>
> "Lee Harrison" <lee...@amaonline.com> wrote in message
> news:B57416CB.210B%lee...@amaonline.com...
> > in article 394e9c5f$0$1495$2486...@news.freeway.net, Caruso at
> > bru...@nmo.net wrote on 6/19/00 5:19 PM:
> >
> > > What part of People can't you Understand?
> >
> > "A state or nation is a body politic, or society of men, united together
> for
> > the purpose of promoting their mutual safety and advantage by their
> combined
> > strength. By the very act of civil and political association, each citizen
> > subjects himself to the authority of the whole; and the authority of all
> > over each member essentially belongs to the body politic."
> >
> > Joseph Story, Commentary on the Constitution of the United States, Book
> II,
> > History of the Revolution and the Confederation, Chapter 1, The
> Revolution.
> > pp 191-92.
--------------------------
Caruso
I have read the same Transcripts and the high court proceedings and I still
disagree with your findings!
Seems you also- have a problem reading the 2nd?
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State.But
the amendment went on to say.
(The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.)
PEOPLE meaning( American Citizen's)
You have a nice day!
Caruso NRA Gun&Hunter!
www.nra.org
"Steve Krulick" <kry...@ulster.net> wrote in message
news:394EC08F...@ulster.net...
Steve Krulick
>
> I still think you have been Drinking to much Miller!
> I have read the same Transcripts and the high court proceedings and I still
> disagree with your findings!
No, you disagree with the courts. Good luck in your next trial when you
tell that to the judge.
>
> Seems you also- have a problem reading the 2nd?
Seems you have a problem READING. NO evidence will make you give up your
fantasy.
You are truly hopeless. When you see a "Don't Walk" sign, do you just
ignore the first half and "Walk" across the street into traffic?
Steve Krulick
>
> Steve Krulick wrote in message <394ED03E...@ulster.net>...
> >No, that the purpose of the 2nd Amen was to keep the feds from
> >infringing on the states' authority, and that the right to bear arms was
> >not the right of an individual to own a firearm independent of serving
> >in a militia.
>
> Suppose there was a state militia,
> specifically founded and described as the "organized militia" by state law,
> with officers selected solely by the governor,
> and uniforms issued by the state,
> with military training paid for by the state.
>
> Would active members of this militia have the right to own a firearm without
> federal infringement?
Don't quote me till I get my seat on the bench, but it would seem, as I
read the rulings, that they had a right to "keep" those weapons that
specifically bore a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or
efficiency of a well regulated militia." They would have to enroll in
the militia and register their weapons in the state's inventory records,
as per the Militia Act of 1792. I have no problem with that.
Steve Krulick
> > Marksman wrote:
> > >
> > > "Roger Denney" <rgde...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:39528826...@news.alt.net...
> > > > The Second Amendment
> > > >
> > > > Does It Give You The Right To Own A Gun?
> > >
> > > Yes.
> >
> > or efficiency of a well regulated militia."
>
Once, just once, I'd like to see an actual, unchallenged, in-force court
ruling that backs up your unsubstantiated opinion. Your "Wrong again"
and 1$ will get you on the bus.
--------------------------
Michael Dix
>
> Jim Patrick wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 16:52:20 -0400, Steve Krulick <kry...@ulster.net> wrote:
> > >Second Amendment did not apply to the states, the court stated the
> > >Amendment did not "confer an absolute individual right to bear any type
> > >of firearm."
> >
>
> Do you always just make things up? This has nothing to do with "the
> right of government to arm its soldiers."
> Why can't you just deal with the words in front of your eyes?
> >
> > >the lower federal courts have uniformly held that the Second Amendment
> > >preserves a collective, rather than individual, right."
> >
>
> infringing on the states' authority, and that the right to bear arms was
> not the right of an individual to own a firearm independent of serving
> in a militia.
>
> > >Fourth Circuit disposed of the Second Amendment challenge by recognizing
> > >that "courts have consistently held that the Second Amendment only
> > >confers a collective right of keeping and bearing arms which must bear a
> > >regulated militia.'"
> >
> > LOL, the Fourth, by their admission, can't uphold their own decision, and
> > depend on appeal to popular opinion.
>
> Do you have the slightest idea how the judicial system works? Do you
> know what "stare decisis" is?
If stare decisis meant what *you* thought it meant, I'd have another
reason to be glad I'm not gay - I'd be facing a lifetime of celibacy.
To borrow the Krulickian wording: The Supreme Court has consistently
held,
since 1986, and so have ALL the Circuits and Courts of Appeals, that
"the
Constitution does not confer a fundamental right upon homosexuals to
engage in sodomy" That's the law; get used to it.
U.S. Supreme Court BOWERS v. HARDWICK, 478 U.S. 186 (1986)
BOWERS, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF GEORGIA v. HARDWICK ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH
CIRCUIT
No. 85-140. Argued March 31, 1986 Decided June 30, 1986
After being charged with violating the Georgia statute criminalizing
sodomy by committing that act with another adult male in the bedroom
of his home, respondent Hardwick (respondent) brought suit in Federal
District Court, challenging the constitutionality of the statute
insofar as it criminalized consensual sodomy. The court granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The Court
of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that the Georgia statute
violated respondent's fundamental rights.
Held:
The Georgia statute is constitutional. Pp. 190-196.
(a) The Constitution does not confer a fundamental right upon
homosexuals to engage in sodomy
........
> >
> > >I have cited nearly a dozen major courts decisions on these NGs and they
> > >say the same thing.
> >
> > They haven't all said the same thing, and those that do are incestuous.
> > It's called "collective hallucination", a sign of "collective thinking".
> > Cite a current case?
>
> Sure. How about YOU citing ANY case that says otherwise! You REALLY
> don't understand the law or the courts, do you?
>
> From the Federal Prosecutor's brief in US v. Emerson to the US Court of
> Appeals, Fifth District:
> http://www.saf.org/EmersonAppealGovt1.html
>
> Federal Courts Have Uniformly Rejected Emerson And Its Rationale In
> Challenges To Section 922(g)(8)'s Constitutionality
>
> Set forth below is an outline of the five cases decided postEmerson in
> which federal courts have uniformly rejected Emerson and/or similar
> challenges to Section 922(g)(8)'s constitutionality:
Except for _Baker_, the following are all District Court rulings, and
carry no more weight than does _Emerson_ at this point.
>
> (1) United States v. Spruill, 61 F. Supp. 2d 587 (W.D. Tex. 1999): Judge
> Ferguson of the Midland-Odessa Division rejected a challenge to Section
> 922(g)(8)'s constitutionality noting renewed debate on both sides and
> the Emerson decision.
> The court stated that, without further guidance from the Supreme Court,
> it would follow the majority in holding the Second Amendment did not
> prohibit the imposition of restrictions on private gun ownership.
>
> (2) United States v. Henry, No. 2:98-CR-057 (N.D. Tex. October 14, 1999)
> (unpublished): Judge Robinson of the Amarillo Division rejected a
> similar constitutional attack on Section 922(g)(8) based on Second and
> Fifth Amendment grounds. A copy of this unpublished decision, as well as
> the separate Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Averitte (in
> which he independently rejects Emerson) is attached as Appendix 5.
>
> (3) United States v. Baker, 197 F.3d 211 (6th Cir. 1999): In rejecting a
> challenge to Section 922(g)(8) under the Due Process Clause, the Sixth
> Circuit determined the defendant had no fundamental right to possess a
> firearm because the Second Amendment did not guarantee a personal right
> to bear arms.
This was a gratuitous bunch of crap, because the appellant's brief
covered
the Fifth Amendment, the Eighth Amendment, and the Commerce Clause, and
*not*at*all* the Second Amendment.
> As such, the court applied a rational basis review in
> concluding the statute rationally related to the government's legitimate
> interest in curtailing the incidence of domestic violence.
>
> (4) United States v. Henson, 55 F.Supp. 2d 528 (S.D. W. Va. 1999): Where
> the defendant merely attached a copy of the Emerson decision in support
> of his motion to dismiss, the court flatly rejected Emerson in holding
> that (i) "the Second Amendment only confers a collective right of
> keeping and bearing arms which must bear a 'reasonable relationship to
> the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia'" and (ii)
> Section 922(g)(8) "does not violate the notice and fair warning
> principles embodied in the Fifth Amendment because of the 'fundamental
> principle' that ignorance of the law is no excuse.'"
>
> (5) United States v. Visnich, 65 F.Supp. 2d 669 (N.D. Ohio 1999): Court
> determined Section 922(g)(8) did not violate defendant's Second
> Amendment rights because he had no individual right to possess a
> firearm. The court also rejected a due process challenge.
>
--
"Subtract twenty" from email address to reply
Lee Harrison
at mark...@juno.com wrote on 6/19/00 5:43 PM:
>>>> And the question was; Does the Second Amendment only apply to the states?
>>
>>> Nope, to the people. Read it.
>>
>> Why don't you show me in the original debates in Congress where the militia
>> amendment protects your personal gun use rather than the right of the militia
>> to keep and bear arms?
> Don't need to.
That's right, you have those NRA handouts that tell you everything you need
to know.
Barksalot's just afraid to read the truth. Ignoramus.
____________________
IN CONVENTION.
September 17, 1787.
Go. WASHINGTON, President.
The Lone Weasel
Michael Dix
>
> Jim String wrote:
> >
> > In article <394D925C...@ulster.net>, Steve Krulick wrote:
> > >axel heyst wrote:
> > >
> > >> Should government have the power to limit the kinds of weapons one owns?
> > >> Does it have that power now?
> > >
> > >Yes. And yes.
> >
> > Incorrect.
>
> Ah, that depends on what you interpret the question to mean. First,
> you're starting with the assumption that govt means FEDERAL govt. The
> questioner said GOVERNMENT. State and local govts HAVE and should have
> the power to limit the kinds of weapons one can own, as a matter of
> public safety and public order. For example, in the Morton Grove case,
> the village of Morton Grove passed an ordinance to restrict handguns.
> That law was found to be constitutional by the 7th Circuit US Court of
> Appeals in 1982. But they went further then that. They said: "Under the
> controlling authority of Miller we conclude that the right to keep and
> bear handguns is not guaranteed by the second amendment. Because the
> second amendment is not applicable to Morton Grove and because
> possession of handguns by individuals is not part of the right to keep
> and bear arms, Ordinance No. 81-11 does not violate the second
> amendment." So according to the highest federal courts, the answer is
> yes, yes, yes and yes.
> >
> > Actually, government _could_ have the power to limit the kinds of weapons
> > we can own, if we gave it to them. We have not given them this power at
> > the present time. The fact that they _think_ they have this power is
> > irrelevant, because they do not have it legitimately.
>
> The National Firearms Act of 1934, on which Miller revolved, was just
> such a power on the national level. In US v. Tot, the 3rd Circuit Court
> of Appeals said of Miller: "This was a prosecution under the National
> Firearms Act of 1934 and the weapon, the possession of which had
> occasioned the prosecution of the accused, was a shotgun of less than 18
> inch barrel. The Court said that in the absence of evidence tending to
> show that possession of such a gun at the time has some reasonable
> relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated
> right to keep such an instrument. The appellant here having failed to
> show such a relationship, the same thing may be said as applied to the
> pistol found in his possession." Later cases extended that to cover
> machine guns and other specific weapons.
>
> Of this Act, the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals said, in Cases v. US in
> 1943 (speaking of US v. Miller):
Apparently, then, under the Second Amendment, the federal
government can limit the keeping and bearing of arms by a single
individual as well as by a group of individuals, but it cannot
prohibit the possession or use of any weapon which has any
reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well
regulated militia. However, we do not feel that the Supreme Court
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
in this case was attempting to formulate a general rule applicable
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
to all cases. The rule which it laid down was adequate to dispose
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
of the case before it and that we think was as far as the Supreme
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Court intended to go. At any rate the rule of the Miller case, if
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
{Listen to the wisdom of this man!}
intended to be comprehensive and complete would seem to be already
outdated, in spite of the fact that it was formulated only three
and a half years ago, because of the well known fact that in the so
called "Commando Units" some sort of military use seems to have
been found for almost any modern lethal weapon. In view of this,
if the rule of the Miller case is general and complete, the result
would follow that, under present day conditions, the federal
government would be empowered only to regulate the possession or
use of weapons such as a flintlock musket or a matchlock harquebus.
But to hold that the Second Amendment limits the federal government
to regulations concerning only weapons which can be classed as
antiques or curiosities, -almost any other might bear some
reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well
regulated militia unit of the present day,-is in effect to hold
that the limitation of the Second Amendment is absolute. Another
objection to the rule of the Miller case as a full and general
statement is that according to it Congress would be prevented by
the Second Amendment from regulating the possession or use by
private persons not present or prospective members of any military
unit, of distinctly military arms, such as machine guns, trench
mortars, anti-tank or anti-aircraft guns, even though under the
circumstances surrounding such possession or use it would be
inconceivable that a private person could have any legitimate
reason for having such a weapon. It seems to us unlikely that the
framers of the Amendment intended any such result. Considering the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
many variable factors bearing upon the question it seems to us
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
impossible to formulate any general test by which to determine the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
limits imposed by the Second Amendment but that each case under it,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
like cases under the due process clause, must be decided on its own
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
facts and the line between what is and what is not a valid federal
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
restriction pricked out by decided cases falling on one side or the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
other of the line.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Let the dividing line be pricked out!
> "The Federal Firearms Act undoubtedly curtails to some extent the
> right of individuals to keep and bear arms but it does not follow from
> this as a necessary consequence that it is bad under the Second
> Amendment which reads "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."
>
> US v. Warin, in the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in 1976 said: "Since
> the Second Amendment right "to keep and bear Arms" applies only to the
> right of the State to maintain a militia and not to the individual's
> right to bear arms, there can be no serious claim to any express
> constitutional right of an individual to possess a firearm."
>
> The fact that YOU think govt doesn't have this power is irrelevant,
> because the courts say they do, and it's the courts job to interpret the
> constitution and laws.
>
> > However, in point of fact, the government _does_ have the power to limit
> > certain types of weapons, such as sporting weapons. Hunting is not a
> > Constitutional right so there's nothing wrong with sporting shotguns
> > being required to use bismuth rather than lead shot, or hunting rifles
> > being limited to 5 rounds and so on.
> >
> > But government has no Constitutional power to limit non-sporting weapons,
> > read the Constitution, it just isn't there.
>
> I can't be held responsible because you misread the constitution.
> Federal govt is only limited, by the 2nd Amen and the militia clauses of
> the constitution, from infringing on the states' rights to organize and
> maintain state militias, with the states having the authority to appoint
> officers.
> >
> > As to whether government _should_ have the power, well, that's debatable.
> > It's certainly possible to vest government with that power, just pass a
> > Constitutional amendment. If enough people agree and the proper procedure
> > is followed we _can_ by virtue of our self-evident, pre-existing, _individual_
> > RKBA vest government with the exclusive or nearly exclusive power of arms.
>
> > I personally don't think that at this time it would be wise or desirable
> > to do so, and at this time government assuredly does not have that power.
> > Anyone who thinks the government is empowered to control what weapons
> > we may keep and bear is welcome to post the language in the Constitution
> > which vests this power in government. Hint: it's not the 2nd Amendment,
> > the BoR is about individual rights, not powers that are vested in government.
> > That's what the rest of the Constitution is all about, and the exclusive
> > power of arms, or the power to control arms, just isn't there.
>
> Hint: the so-called bill of rights is not about individuals per se or
> what individuals can't do, but about what the Federal govt can't do; it
> spells out the limits of its authority. You may, for simplicity's sake
> call it a "civil right" to have, say, freedom of speech, but the actual
> construct is that "Congress shall make no law abridging" free speech.
>
> That is not the same thing as what you perceive to be a "self-evident,
> pre-existing, individual" right, which would be a "natural right" in the
> "State of Nature" or anarchy.
Scout
> in article fHt35.464$Cq4.5046@news, Docky Wocky at richard...@lst.net
> wrote on 6/19/00 12:32 PM:
>
> > "The absolutist view of the Second Amendment, argued by some opponents
of
> > regulation of firearms, has not been sustained by a single U.S. Supreme
> > Court or
> > lower court decision in our nation's history..."
> > _______________________
> >
> > The supreme court did not do away with slavery, either.
>
> But the federal government did end slavery,
Excuse me, I thought slavery was ended when the states (not the federal
government) ratified the 13th Amendment.
Are you rewritting the Amendment process as well?
> and nothing else could have done
> it.
Well actually each state could have done so within their state and achieved
the same effect, but this was the simpliest method to enact it on that sort
of national scale.
Yep, I notice how it took a Constitutional Amendment to make that change.
> > Would you imagine that the supreme court is not on the side of
government?
>
> You're aware that the Second Amendment is on the side of government,
No, actually it is a prohibition against the government, so it is hardly on
the side of the government.
> and
> prevents Congress from disarming the state militias?
I see, so know you are again saying that the 2nd Amendment protects my right
to keep and bear arms without infringment since I am a member in a state
militia?
Poor Lee, he can never seem to make up his mind if the 2nd applies to state
militias or not.
> In fact, we're
> discussing legal issues, not somebody's bullshit opinions.
Oh, so you can back up your claims that I am not protected by the 2nd
Amendment despite being in a well regulated militia?
> Care to try the natural rights ploy?
Sure, no problem. 9th Amendment, read it and weep.
What is the source of these rights? The government? Nope, that is denied in
the Declaration of Independence, which states that governments are instuted
among men to protect their rights, so the government can hardly be the
source of the rights. So call it God-given, natural, or pink poka dotted,
rights exist outside of the government, and tyrants can not take them away,
nor Patriots restore them (a paraphrase of a quote you might recognize).
However, let's play Lee's game. Where do you think our rights from from?
Does this include the right to form a government?
Scout
> in article uTt35.11931$ds.3...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net,
Marksman
> at mark...@juno.com wrote on 6/19/00 12:45 PM:
>
> >> And the question was; Does the Second Amendment only apply to the
states?
>
> > Nope, to the people. Read it.
>
> Why don't you show me in the original debates in Congress where the
militia
> amendment protects your personal gun use rather than the right of the
> militia to keep and bear arms?
Why settle for intermediate steps when it the final form that has the weight
of law?
"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."
Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
Something that Lee would deny the existence of.
Ian Mac Lure
: In article <394CC2C9...@mindspring.com>, georgann says...
:>
:>georgann wrote:
:>
:>YES.
:>
: And the question was; Does the Second Amendment only apply to the states?
NO, Presser makes it quite clear that it applies to all gummint.
: P.S. Some gunners think that if there is no special right to have a gun under
: the Second Amendment, there is no right to own a gun. How silly! The BoR
: doesn't even mention houses, do you think you have no right to own a house?
HCI would like to dispose of the incovenience that the 2nd
Amendment poses for their position. Are we about to let them?
Hell No! This understandably drives Idiot-Al and his friends to
distraction.
: --
: """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
: "By constantly harping on the theme that the Constitution is under fire, the
: NRA incites hatred and violence. While insisting that it stands for law and
: order, the NRA foments anarchy and chaos."
: Jack Anderson in "Inside the NRA"
Didn't work for the "Great And Powerful Oz" and ain't gonna work
for Sarah and Co.
And what pray tell, does a gossip columnist know about the NRA.
Al Isham, Traitor, Swine, and Liar, but first and foremost
an idiot.
--
* Ian B MacLure ********* Sunnyvale, CA ***** Engineer/Archer *****
* No Times Like The Maritimes *************************************
* Opinions Expressed Here Are Mine. That's Mine , Mine, MINE ******
* VR Level=3/Holding **********************************************
Randy Sweeney
>infringing on the states' authority, and that the right to bear arms was
>not the right of an individual to own a firearm independent of serving
>in a militia.
Marksman
> Marksman wrote:
> >
> > "Steve Krulick" <kry...@ulster.net> wrote in message
> > news:394E894C...@ulster.net...
> > > Marksman wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Roger Denney" <rgde...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:39528826...@news.alt.net...
> > > > > The Second Amendment
> > > > >
> > > > > Does It Give You The Right To Own A Gun?
> > > >
> > > > Yes.
> > >
preservation
> > > or efficiency of a well regulated militia."
> >
> > Wrong again.
>
> Once, just once, I'd like to see an actual, unchallenged, in-force court
> ruling that backs up your unsubstantiated opinion. Your "Wrong again"
> and 1$ will get you on the bus.
>
Try reading the 2nd. It'll explain it all to you, unless you are too simple
to understand it.
Marksman
"Volt" <volt...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3964fc4c...@news.mindspring.com...
>
> Isn't this game of "play-like" fun, Sweetie.
>
> You win again.
>
> Dolt
>
Out of the killfile again dolt?
PLONK
Marksman
> Marksman wrote:
> >
> > "Lee Harrison" <lee...@amaonline.com> wrote in message
> > news:B573E3C6.1CB8%lee...@amaonline.com...
> > > in article uTt35.11931$ds.3...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net,
> > Marksman
> > > at mark...@juno.com wrote on 6/19/00 12:45 PM:
> > >
> > states?
> > >
> > >
> > > Why don't you show me in the original debates in Congress where the
> > militia
> > > amendment protects your personal gun use rather than the right of the
> > > militia to keep and bear arms?
> >
>
> That suggestion only works for people who can UNDERSTAND what they're
> reading. So-called Marksman once again refuses to back up his opinion
> with unambiguous and credible authority. He says the 2nd Amen means what
> HE says it means, and that's that. No amount of evidence will sway him.
> How admirable!
I read it for what it is, I do not need anyone to interpret it for me.
Unlike you, I can read, think and comprehend all on my own.
Marksman
"Jim Patrick" <jpat...@shentel.net> wrote in message
news:sahtks0n616304e66...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 16:52:20 -0400, Steve Krulick <kry...@ulster.net>
wrote:
> >...After noting the
> >Second Amendment did not apply to the states, the court stated the
> >Amendment did not "confer an absolute individual right to bear any type
> >of firearm."
>
> Affirming "the right of government to arm its soldiers" Hahahahahaha
>
The fools don't realize this is what they are claiming the 2nd means. If
this was it's intent, it would be totally unnecessary.
Steve Krulick
> > > > Marksman wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Roger Denney" <rgde...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:39528826...@news.alt.net...
> > > > > > The Second Amendment
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Does It Give You The Right To Own A Gun?
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes.
> > > >
> > > > No, not independent of "some reasonable relationship to the
> preservation
> > > > or efficiency of a well regulated militia."
> > >
> > > Wrong again.
> >
> > Once, just once, I'd like to see an actual, unchallenged, in-force court
> > ruling that backs up your unsubstantiated opinion. Your "Wrong again"
> > and 1$ will get you on the bus.
> >
>
> Try reading the 2nd. It'll explain it all to you, unless you are too simple
> to understand it.
Oh, so now amendments "explain" themselves. Then, if they are so
self-evident, why do people disagree on what they mean and why do courts
have to interpret them? Without understanding how the writers USED those
words in their day, you might as well be reading Latin.
Well, here it is:
"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."
That took about 5 seconds. IT says nothing about individuals having
absolute rights to own firearms, but it does refer to militias.
Every court, referring to the plain text says: "Construing this language
according to its plain meaning, it seems clear that the right to bear
arms is inextricably connected to the preservation of a militia."
(Morton Grove) "Consulting the text and history of the amendment, the
[Supreme] Court found [in US v. Miller] that the right to keep and bear
arms is meant solely to protect the right of the states to keep and
maintain armed militia... The Court's understanding follows a plain
reading of the Amendment's text. The Amendment's second clause declares
that the goal is to preserve the security of "a free state;" its first
clause establishes the premise that a "well-regulated militia" is
necessary to this end. Thus it is only in furtherance of state security
that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is finally
proclaimed." (Hickman v. Block)
Since you refuse to cite any credible authority to refute the 60 years
of court rulings, I'll give you one last try, and then I have no further
use wasting my time with you:
Assume everyone is too simple to understand it; YOU explain what it
means, either right from the words of the 2nd Amen and NOTHING else, or
with reference to what each word meant in the context of when it was
written. Do that simple task and we'll send it off to the Emerson
readings and you may just get your wish and have the courts see things
the WAY you do and we'll all have to bow to your superior wisdom.
If not, you stand empty-handed.
Marksman
I could care less what the "courts" say.
>
> Since you refuse to cite any credible authority to refute the 60 years
> of court rulings, I'll give you one last try, and then I have no further
> use wasting my time with you:
>
See above.
>
> If not, you stand empty-handed.
>
In your anti rights opinion, which is worthless.
Steve Krulick
Fine, we're all stupid, every one of us. Enlighten us. Interpret it for
us. Tell us what each word means as the writers meant it to mean in the
usage of their day and why they used those precise terms. Tell us why it
was written EXACTLY as it was, in that precise order, with THREE commas.
Let us sample your superior reading, thinking and interpreting skills.
We wait with great anticipation!
Caruso
Your a twister of facts nothing more!
you have nothing to address but those
twisted facts!
You can run your keyboard,transform it with your printer,
and hang it on your wall as Graffiti!
I have studied the Constitution and the Second Amendment for more than 20
years,and read hundreds of
Court proceedings as well!
The Second still stands as read!
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State.But
the amendment went on to say.
(The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.)
PEOPLE meaning( American Citizen's)
Here go learn something!
http://www.shadeslanding.com/firearms/militia_.htm
Caruso NRA Gun&Hunter Safety!
www.nra.org
"Steve Krulick" <kry...@ulster.net> wrote in message
news:394ED296...@ulster.net...
> Caruso wrote:
> >
> > Do you have a problem reading the 2nd?
>
> You don't seem to grasp the point Lee is making; I look forward to how
> you will avoid addressing my response on a separte posting.
> >
> > "Lee Harrison" <lee...@amaonline.com> wrote in message
> > news:B57416CB.210B%lee...@amaonline.com...
> > > in article 394e9c5f$0$1495$2486...@news.freeway.net, Caruso at
> > > bru...@nmo.net wrote on 6/19/00 5:19 PM:
> > >
> > > > What part of People can't you Understand?
> > >
> > > "A state or nation is a body politic, or society of men, united
together
> > for
> > > the purpose of promoting their mutual safety and advantage by their
> > combined
> > > strength. By the very act of civil and political association, each
citizen
> > > subjects himself to the authority of the whole; and the authority of
all
> > > over each member essentially belongs to the body politic."
> > >
> > > Joseph Story, Commentary on the Constitution of the United States,
Book
> > II,
> > > History of the Revolution and the Confederation, Chapter 1, The
> > Revolution.
> > > pp 191-92.
>
Marksman
Every one of you anti rights zealots are all stupid. You all have been
enlightened in this ng numerous times, but I guess your thick skulls won't
absorb the truth.
Steve Krulick
"Your Honor, I rest my case. So-called Marksman has no use or respect
for the judicial system, no ability to refute a logical argument, labels
people and makes assumptions about them without showing how that was
arrived at, and does not grant to others the respect he would want for
his own opinion, unwilling as he is to show how that was arrived at."
"This Court of Public Opinion finds for Mr. Krulick. So-called Marksman
will have the books thrown at him, so that he may read and interpret
them in any idiosyncratic way he wishes, in a padded cell suitable for
his own protection and that of society's. The loon will be killfiled at
dawn. Court is adjourned."
I bow to the Buddha nature in you.
Good Bye.
Steve Krulick
Knew you couldn't do it. You didn't even have the courage to leave in
the rest of my post:
-----------
Fine, we're all stupid, every one of us. Enlighten us. Interpret it for
us. Tell us what each word means as the writers meant it to mean in the
usage of their day and why they used those precise terms. Tell us why it
was written EXACTLY as it was, in that precise order, with THREE commas.
Let us sample your superior reading, thinking and interpreting skills.
We wait with great anticipation!
-----------
You are a pre-judging name-caller, and an avoider of facts, who doesn't
have the integrity to defend his beliefs, support his positions, or
admit his own ignorance. And you're going to stand up for your rights
when the jack-booted govt thugs come to bust up your fantasy world!
Right!
You're not worth another minute of my time.
You are pathetic.
Marksman
I'm tired of you anti rights zealots. The error of your (so called) logic
has been proven to you numerous times. You choose to ignore the facts. It is
pointless to discuss the subject with you.
>
> You're not worth another minute of my time.
You are dismissed.
>
> You are pathetic.
>
How does it feel to be lower than pathetic?
Marksman
> > > > > Marksman wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Steve Krulick" <kry...@ulster.net> wrote in message
yawn..... No ability to refute? Please son..... No desire to debate with an
anti rights zealot would be more accurate.
You lose again.
>
> "This Court of Public Opinion finds for Mr. Krulick. So-called Marksman
> will have the books thrown at him, so that he may read and interpret
> them in any idiosyncratic way he wishes, in a padded cell suitable for
> his own protection and that of society's. The loon will be killfiled at
> dawn. Court is adjourned."
The court finds you should be in a rubber room.
>
> I bow to the Buddha nature in you.
I will never bow to the Nazi nature in you.
>
> Good Bye.
You are dismissed.
Bama Brian
decisions?
Miller was, but Love vs Peppersack was pretty clearly a 4th Circuit decision
in 1995(?). Please quote the SCOTUS decisions. Include Miller if you like,
but it's pretty obvious what was said there. "In the absence of any
evidence...we cannot say..." And this did not decide whether or not the 2nd
Amendment was an individual or collective right.
----------------------
Cheers
Bama Brian
'97 Triumph Thunderbird, '99 Victory V92C
Libertarian, GOA Life, NRA Life
Voting for the lesser of two evils is STILL voting for an evil.
Vote Libertarian. You'll be glad you did.
----------------------
Steve Krulick <kry...@ulster.net> wrote in message
news:394E8804...@ulster.net...
> Marksman wrote:
> >
> > "Steve Krulick" <kry...@ulster.net> wrote in message
> > news:394D478F...@ulster.net...
> > > georgann wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Georgann:
> > > > I was attempting to point out that when challenged on
> > > > individual vs militia "right" the SC has come down on the side
> > > > of individual ownership. I was not really talking about states
> > > > in this matter at all.
> > > >
> > > Never! The Supreme Court has consistently held, since 1939, and so
have
> > > ALL the Circuits and Courts of Appeals, that there is no absolute
> > > individual right to possesses firearms independent of the "reasonable
> > > relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated
> > > militia." That's the law; get used to it.
> > >
> >
> > Wrong again!
>
> Once again, a blanket denial of a provable statement of fact, without a
> single cite to disprove it. At least so-called Marksman didn't do his
> usual petulant "you're being childish and I won't play anymore" excuse
> for not rising to the challenge. So again I'll point to an actual court
> decision, and let's see if so-called Marksman can take aim at it and
> come somewhere near the barn's broad side.
>
>
> In just the 4th Circuit alone: In Love v. Peppersack, 47 F.3d 120 (4th
> Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 813 (1995), an applicant for the purchase
> of a handgun filed a 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 action against police officers
> involved in the denial of her application alleging, among other things,
> that her right "to keep and bear" a handgun had been violated. Like the
> Emerson/Cummings trial, the applicant cited a number of law review
> articles in support of her Second Amendment claim. After noting the
> Second Amendment did not apply to the states, the court stated the
> Amendment did not "confer an absolute individual right to bear any type
> of firearm." Referring to Miller, the court stated that: "Since then,
> the lower federal courts have uniformly held that the Second Amendment
> preserves a collective, rather than individual, right." Ultimately, the
> Fourth Circuit disposed of the Second Amendment challenge by recognizing
> that "courts have consistently held that the Second Amendment only
> confers a collective right of keeping and bearing arms which must bear a
> 'reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well
> regulated militia.'"
>
> I have cited nearly a dozen major courts decisions on these NGs and they
> say the same thing.
>
> ----------------------------
> "reasonable relationship to
> the preservation or
> efficiency of a
> well regulated militia."
> ----------------------------
georgann
> Don't quote me till I get my seat on the bench, but it would seem, as I
> read the rulings, that they had a right to "keep" those weapons that
> specifically bore a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or
> efficiency of a well regulated militia." They would have to enroll in
> the militia and register their weapons in the state's inventory records,
> as per the Militia Act of 1792. I have no problem with that.
georgann wrote:
You can stop planning to make it to the bench Steve. You'd
never make it past a local judge in Denver, CO with those
espoused beliefs.
c.c.
georgann
---forgiven since 33 A.D.---
Caruso
Must be same squeak came out!
Little Less than one Volt!news:3966fce9...@news.mindspring.com...
> On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 22:50:03 -0500, "Caruso" <bru...@nmo.net> wrote:
>
> >I still think you have been Drinking to much Miller!
> >I have read the same Transcripts and the high court proceedings and I
still
> >disagree with your findings!
> >
> >
> >A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free
State.But
> >the amendment went on to say.
> >(The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.)
> >PEOPLE meaning( American Citizen's)
> >
> >
> >Caruso NRA Gun&Hunter!
> >www.nra.org
>
> When were you appointed to the Supreme Court, Justice Gun Whore?
>
> Volt> >news:394EC08F...@ulster.net...
> >> Caruso wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I think you have been Drinking to much Miller!
> >> > I have read the same Transcripts and dissagree with your findings!
> >>
> >> Which transcripts? The Court of Appeals decisions since Miller? For
> >> example, what part of this paragraph from US v. Tot, Third Circuit
Court
> >> of Appeals, 1942, can't you understand:
> >>
> >> "It is abundantly clear both from the discussions of this amendment
> >> contemporaneous with its proposal and adoption and those of learned
> >> writers since that this amendment, unlike those providing for
protection
> >> of free speech and freedom of religion, was not adopted with individual
> >> rights in mind, but as a protection for the States in the maintenance
of
> >> their militia organizations against possible encroachments by the
> >> federal power."
> >>
> >> > What part of People can't you Understand?
> >>
> >> "refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or
> >> who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to
> >> be considered part of that community."? The "class of persons" referred
> >> to in the 2nd Amen -- and note that "class" is a COLLECTIVE term --
were
> >> able-bodied, property-owning white males approx. 18-45 who weren't in
> >> prison and who were enrolled (registered, along with their weapons) in
> >> the state-run and maintained militia. At no time was their right to
> >> "bear arms" [which is a military reference that every 18th Century
> >> educated person would know meant "to serve in the militia or army," as
> >> proven by the use of the term by Madison in his original draft of the
> >> amendment to allow for conscientious objectors: "The right of the
people
> >> to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well
> >> regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no
> >> person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to
> >> render military service in person."] used in any sense other than a
> >> military one, and it is inconceivable that Madison's meaning in the
> >> first part would be different than his meaning in the second part
> >> (unless you think Quakers may have had religious scruples about
"bearing
> >> arms" to shoot turkeys). That the final version was made more narrow in
> >> scope, and focussed on the militia by putting it first, and used FOUR
> >> commas to allow the infringement clause to link back to the militia
> >> clause, shows what the ratifiers as a consensus group REALLY were
after.
>
> Ecrasons l'infame
>
> Join the War on Right Wing Ignorance
> http://clusterone.home.mindspring.com/
>
> Campaign 2000
> http://clusterone.home.mindspring.com/campaign2000.html
>
> =============================================================
> "There are many attempts to pass a law in States just requesting a
> limit of buying one gun a month, and it doesn't pass. One gun a month!
> If you started when you were 18, by the time you were 60 that would be
> over 1,000 guns. I don't care how short your penis is, that should be
> enough guns."
> --Bill Maher, "Be More
Cynical" on HBO
> =============================================================
Fre...@liberty.com
No. It doesn't GIVE you ANY RIGHTS...but it does Protect, by the
Supreme Law of the Land, your PRE-EXISTING RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR
ARMS...which certainly Includes Guns, and Many other Arms as well.
--------------------------------------------------------------
"The Rights of conscience, of Bearing Arms, of changing the
government, are declared to be inherent in the people."
--- Fisher Ames, of Massachusetts,
Letter to F.R. Minoe, June 12, 1789
--------------------------------------------------------------
George Spelvin
> > >axel heyst wrote:
> > >
> > >> Should government have the power to limit the kinds of weapons one owns?
> > >> Does it have that power now?
> > >
> > >Yes. And yes.
> >
> > Incorrect.
>
So you would feel comfortable if people wanted to bear nuclear arms?
George Spelvin
> "Your Honor, I rest my case. So-called Marksman has no use or respect
> for the judicial system, no ability to refute a logical argument, labels
> people and makes assumptions about them without showing how that was
> arrived at, and does not grant to others the respect he would want for
> his own opinion, unwilling as he is to show how that was arrived at."
Right. He seems to love the 2nd Amendment, but doesn't seem to care too much for
the other parts of the Constitution; especially the parts about the judicial
system.
George Spelvin
> "
> > "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."
> >
> > That took about 5 seconds. IT says nothing about individuals having
> > absolute rights to own firearms, but it does refer to militias.
> >
> > Every court,
>
> I could care less what the "courts" say.
>
That is your response? So because you "couldn't care less," that means the
amendment guarantees you the right to have a gun? Pitiful ignorance.
>
> > Since you refuse to cite any credible authority to refute the 60 years
> > of court rulings, I'll give you one last try, and then I have no further
> > use wasting my time with you:
> >
>
> See above.
> > If not, you stand empty-handed.
> >
> In your anti rights opinion, which is worthless.
He hasn't shown any sign of "anti-rights." You, on the other hand, have only
demonstrated your inability to debate in a usenet group.
Panhead
People already have them and I'm not very concerned about it. Are
you, Strawman?