Gun Rights
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>> In this country we have a constitutional right to keep and bear
>> arms.
> That wasn't the real intent of the section but unfortunately your
> legal system seems to have created it that way
That _WAS_ the intent of the section (the 2nd amendment to the U.S.
Constitution, which was adopted with 10 amendments in place). There
are some revisionists who might try to tell you otherwise, but no
honest serious scholar on the subject will make that assertion. The
framers' other writings on the issue makes it clear that the intent of
the 2nd amendment is to protect the rights of private citizens to
possess and carry guns.
> - but why not just change the law?
It is neither popular nor politically feasible to do so. It takes a
fair amount of political subterfuge to get much less sweeping gun
control laws passed. To get a constitutional amendment passed, you
need 2/3 of the House and Senate, plus 3/4 of all state legislatures
must concur. That's not about to happen.
> Another point that's been puzzling me is why is it that in the US so
> many people shoot each other yet in France, where owning a pistol is
> legal (though you can't walk around the street with it without police
> approval), they don't?
Most of the gun crime in the U.S. where someone is seriously injured or
killed occurs in a relatively small number of high-crime areas (or else
nearby, committed by someone from there). When these instances are
discounted, gun-crime stats are probably about the same as France (if
not less).
In every state except for one (Vermont) a private citizen needs a
concealed carry permit to carry a concealed gun. In many states you
can supposedly carry a gun as long as it is visible, but (except for
rural areas) the police are going to give you a very hard time about
that. (And the only reason you can get away with it in rural areas is
because there are no police there.)
The current controversy here is over "shall issue" laws regarding the
issuance of concealed carry permits. This means that, unless the state
has a compelling reason for not doing so, they shall issue a concealed
carry permit to every applicant. A number of states have adopted such
an approach -- and have seen crime drop significanly as a result. On
the other hand, areas with the highest amount of crime are areas with
the strictest gun control. It seems that the level of crime has an
exponential relationship to the level of gun control.
Where gun ownership is a crime, only criminals have guns.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kal...@worldnet.att.net
tudor
>That _WAS_ the intent of the section (the 2nd amendment to the U.S.
>Constitution, which was adopted with 10 amendments in place). There
>are some revisionists who might try to tell you otherwise, but no
>honest serious scholar on the subject will make that assertion. The
>framers' other writings on the issue makes it clear that the intent of
>the 2nd amendment is to protect the rights of private citizens to
>possess and carry guns.
First off, the U.S. Constitution was not adopted with 10 amendments in
place. The constitution was adopted in 1787 and the first ten amendments,
known collectively as the Bill of Rights, were adopted in 1791.
Secondly, if the second amendment was so "clear" as to the supposed "right"
of individuals to possess and carry guns, why has the Supreme Court never
found such a right? And why has the chief lobby for the extremist
interpretation, the National Rifle Association, not challenged the many
Draconian ant-gun restrictions on the books in localities around the
country? Could it be that Chucky Heston knows he'd lose?
>> - but why not just change the law?
>
>It is neither popular nor politically feasible to do so. It takes a
>fair amount of political subterfuge to get much less sweeping gun
>control laws passed. To get a constitutional amendment passed, you
>need 2/3 of the House and Senate, plus 3/4 of all state legislatures
>must concur. That's not about to happen.
It could also be that there's no need to change the second amendment, since
it deals only with the provisions for equipping state militias and defines
the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms in a collective sense only.
>Most of the gun crime in the U.S. where someone is seriously injured or
>killed occurs in a relatively small number of high-crime areas (or else
>nearby, committed by someone from there). When these instances are
>discounted, gun-crime stats are probably about the same as France (if
>not less).
One thing France does not have is the regular gun-related masacres of
innocent civilians by psychotics wielding guns. I don't know what provisions
France has for pre-approval, registration and training of gun owners.
Perhaps someone who knows could tell us. But they must have something better
than we do. In the United States, every time there's a mass murder with
guns, the gun lobby uses the occasion to call for further relaxation of our
already loose rules on guns.
>Where gun ownership is a crime, only criminals have guns.
The usual tautological NRA sloganeering. Where gun ownership is a crime,
there's a lot less crime and murder.
H.A.P. >Happy Jack<
>One thing France does not have is the regular gun-related masacres of
>innocent civilians by psychotics wielding guns. I don't know what provisions
>France has for pre-approval, registration and training of gun owners.
>Perhaps someone who knows could tell us. But they must have something better
>than we do.
They do. It's called "intitutionalizing the psychotics".
Unfortunately, in the US, the same smarmy, mealy-mouthed, off-the-wall
liberals that espouse disamament of the citizenry, also work very hard
at "mainstreaming" the nut cases.
It has nothing to do with "pre-approval, registration and training of
gun owners". When you consider that there are over 240 million
functional firearms in the US, they are some of the most well-behaved
inanimate objects in the world.
Hap
To reply by e-mail, please remove the ".ns." in my e-mail address.
To find out where the grass-roots, pro-gun organizations are,
check out www.arms.org/links/
H.A.P. >Happy Jack<
>Secondly, if the second amendment was so "clear" as to the supposed "right"
>of individuals to possess and carry guns, why has the Supreme Court never
>found such a right?
It did, in several cases, most notably in US vs Miller, in which it
found that side arms commonly in use by the armed forces were
especially protected, which means that M16s in the hands of civilians
*should* be legal.
>And why has the chief lobby for the extremist
>interpretation, the National Rifle Association, not challenged the many
>Draconian ant-gun restrictions on the books in localities around the
>country? Could it be that Chucky Heston knows he'd lose?
Nope. They try. But the Supreme Court decides what it will hear and
what it will not hear. I suspect that the Supreme Court is the one
who is afraid. If they ever hear the case, in one decision, they will
be responsible for overturning 22,000 gun laws and a host of related
and similar regulation, not to mention, putting 15,000 government
workers out of a job.
BTW, the NRA is the least of *your* worries. They like to compromise.
You need to watch out for GOA.
>
>It could also be that there's no need to change the second amendment, since
>it deals only with the provisions for equipping state militias and defines
>the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms in a collective sense only.
This is pure crap. The "militia" is defined in CFR Title 10 Section
311. *You* probably qualify. If what you say is true, then only the
state militias could vote, exercise free religion, assemble in
public...
One of the tenants of law is that in a legal document, the definition
of terms used does not change within the document (especially to suit
the whim of some sniveling wimp). Therefore "people" means
"individuals" wherever it is used.
>
>The usual tautological NRA sloganeering. Where gun ownership is a crime,
>there's a lot less crime and murder.
>
Get off your anti-intellectual horse. Your drivel is less than
inspiring. Your statement "Where gun ownership is a crime,
there's a lot less crime and murder" is pure bullshit too. Before
the fall of the Soviet Union, there were districts where violent
mayhem in crimes per 100K was so bad (2.7 times the average metro area
in the US) that restaurants were not allowed to put knives on the
tables. You need to look for a different factor than availability.
Maybe you shoud try: "Where gun ownership is a crime, the risk of
genocide skyrockets". After all, 21 million Cambodians, 16 million
Eastern Europeans, 8 million Ugandans, and 6 million Jews can't be
wrong.
tudor
>
>They do. It's called "intitutionalizing the psychotics".
>Unfortunately, in the US, the same smarmy, mealy-mouthed, off-the-wall
>liberals that espouse disamament of the citizenry, also work very hard
>at "mainstreaming" the nut cases.
Do you know what the French gun laws are, or is you just spouting off to
cover your ignorance?
As for the movement toward deinstitutionalizing mental patients, it's not
accurate to blame it on "the liberals." The conservatives didn't want to
fund either the old mental hospitals or the community clinics that were
supposed to replace them. So, instead, what we have is deranged people who
sometimes take their meds and sometimes do not.
David Veal
tudor <tu...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>Secondly, if the second amendment was so "clear" as to the supposed "right"
>of individuals to possess and carry guns, why has the Supreme Court never
>found such a right?
See "Fourteenth Amendment, The." (That would be the one where it
took ninety years to reach the modern interpretation.)
Up until the 1930s, other than incorportation (which was a non-issue
for most of the Bill of Rights before the mid-part of this century) the
question of what the Second Amendment did was theoretical because there
were no Federal gun control laws. Since the institution of Federal gun
control laws there has been exactly one Supreme Court case on the subject,
at which the defense did not present a case.
There is almost no case-law on the Third Amendment either, and it
isn't because it is hard to understand. The real question is why there is
no more recent case on the subject given the number of modern Federal
controls on guns, particularly considering that the one case on the
subject didn't have a differing viewpoint presented (the disposition of
the case was essentially moot to the defense).
>And why has the chief lobby for the extremist interpretation, the
>National Rifle Association, not challenged the many Draconian ant-gun
>restrictions on the books in localities around the country? Could it be
>that Chucky Heston knows he'd lose?
Actually they can't challenge them because the courts have held
previously that you can't challenge gun control laws unless you have
something personal to lose. That is, you have been charged with a
violation. A member of the NRA presumably could break the law, but that
isn't exactly a good PR move.
A good case to mount a challenge with would involve an upstanding
citizen whose only flaw is he broke a single regulatory law and would be
willing to spend months or years in jail on the off chance the Supreme
Court would hear the case. (Because even if they become interested in
hearing a case on the subject, they may not hear *your* case).
Finding people willing to do that can be tough.
--
David Veal ve...@utk.edu
Albert Isham
>
>>And why has the chief lobby for the extremist interpretation, the
>>National Rifle Association, not challenged the many Draconian ant-gun
>>restrictions on the books in localities around the country? Could it be
>>that Chucky Heston knows he'd lose?
>
> Actually they can't challenge them because the courts have held
>previously that you can't challenge gun control laws unless you have
>something personal to lose. That is, you have been charged with a
>violation. A member of the NRA presumably could break the law, but that
>isn't exactly a good PR move.
>
>
Right church, wrong pew, David. The courts have recently ruled that since
only a state can be injured by a violation of the Second Amendment, only
states have standing to sue in federal court for a violation.
The last word from the Ninth Circuit of the Court of Appeals on the
subject of rights protected by the Second Amendment is Hickman v. Block, 81
F.3d 98 (9th Cir 1996), in which one Douglas Ray Hickman was suing various
public officials of local cities for denying him a concealed carry permit.
The Ninth Circuit dismissed this with rather obvious prejudice:
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 (1939), in which the Supreme Court
upheld a conviction under the National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C. S 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.
[footnote 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
well-regulated militia are 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. [footnote 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 96 S.Ct. 3168 (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) (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.
...
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 (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 Cir. 1982) (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").
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>> That _WAS_ the intent of the section (the 2nd amendment to the U.S.
>> Constitution, which was adopted with 10 amendments in place). There
>> are some revisionists who might try to tell you otherwise, but no
>> honest serious scholar on the subject will make that assertion. The
>> framers' other writings on the issue makes it clear that the intent
>> of the 2nd amendment is to protect the rights of private citizens to
>> possess and carry guns.
> First off, the U.S. Constitution was not adopted with 10 amendments
> in place. The constitution was adopted in 1787 and the first ten
> amendments, known collectively as the Bill of Rights, were adopted in
> 1791.
It depends on what you mean by "adopted". The Constitution had to be
unanimously ratified by all thirteen states in order for it to go into
effect. And that didn't happen without the first 10 amendments.
> Secondly, if the second amendment was so "clear"
It's quite clear to me. The only reason you seem to have trouble with
it is because you don't like what it says.
> as to the supposed "right" of individuals to possess and carry guns,
You don't have the right to "suppose" what I can or can't do.
> why has the Supreme Court never found such a right?
It has, every time it has heard a case on the matter.
> And why has the chief lobby for the extremist interpretation, the
> National Rifle Association,
The NRA is actually rather moderate on the subject compared to those
who are especially extreme.
> not challenged the many Draconian ant-gun restrictions on the books
> in localities around the country?
Because there are only so many hours in one day, perhaps?
> Could it be that Chucky Heston knows he'd lose?
You can't blame him -- he hasn't been on the job all that long.
>>> - but why not just change the law?
>> It is neither popular nor politically feasible to do so. It takes a
>> fair amount of political subterfuge to get much less sweeping gun
>> control laws passed. To get a constitutional amendment passed, you
>> need 2/3 of the House and Senate, plus 3/4 of all state legislatures
>> must concur. That's not about to happen.
> It could also be that there's no need to change the second amendment,
> since it deals only with the provisions for equipping state militias
> and defines the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms in a
> collective sense only.
In this country, one has the right to be stupid. And apparently there
are those who are not in the least bit bashful about exercising such a
right. And I suppose it is only natural for stupid people to put their
stupidity on parade. But anyone who has any sense -- even if they are
dishonest -- wouldn't try to advance this stupid argument. For even
only rudimentary research on the subject will show the above assertion
to be pure nonsense.
>> Most of the gun crime in the U.S. where someone is seriously injured
>> or killed occurs in a relatively small number of high-crime areas
>> (or else nearby, committed by someone from there). When these
>> instances are discounted, gun-crime stats are probably about the
>> same as France (if not less).
> One thing France does not have is the regular gun-related masacres of
> innocent civilians by psychotics wielding guns.
That's probably because the French keep their psychotics in the
nuthouse where they belong rather than releasing them back into society
like the bleeding-heart judges do here.
> I don't know what provisions France has for pre-approval,
> registration and training of gun owners. Perhaps someone who knows
> could tell us. But they must have something better than we do.
And when gun crime is committed in the U.S., it isn't because the
"gunowner" who committed it didn't have the proper training.
> In the United States, every time there's a mass murder with guns, the
> gun lobby uses the occasion to call for further relaxation of our
> already loose rules on guns.
No, rather, every time there's a mass murder with guns, Chuckie Schumer
and Sarah Brady and the rest of that lot use the occasion to call for
ever more tightening of our already-stringent gun laws.
>> Where gun ownership is a crime, only criminals have guns.
> The usual tautological NRA sloganeering. Where gun ownership is a
> crime, there's a lot less crime and murder.
Like in Washington, DC for example?
Theodore A. Kaldis
> As for the movement toward deinstitutionalizing mental patients, it's
> not accurate to blame it on "the liberals." The conservatives didn't
> want to fund either the old mental hospitals or the community clinics
> that were supposed to replace them. So, instead, what we have is
> deranged people who sometimes take their meds and sometimes do not.
It's not a matter of funding, you chump. Nut cases have been released
because bleeding-heard judges have ruled that they can't be held
against their will. As for "community clinics", those were done in
(and rightly so) by NIMBY ("Not In My Back Yard"). Would you want one
of those clinics set up next door to YOUR house?
If you want to see the stark consequences of what happens when you put
mentally deranged people into a community, you should take a look at
Asbury Park, N.J. Remember Bruce Springsteen's 1973 album "Greetings
from Asbury Park, New Jersey"? The front cover was an actual post card
depicting the amusements at the boardwalk. It used to be a thriving
resort town.
Then, because it was lightly populated during the off-season, the state
started housing deinstitutionalized mental patients there. But the
crazies didn't leave when summer rolled aroung. Crime went up
substantially, and the tourists started avoiding it. Today, the resort
business is gone completely, and the boardwalk area looks like a war
zone.
David Veal
Albert Isham <ais...@ne.infi.net> wrote:
>In article <6qhuoa$ntd$1...@gaia.ns.utk.edu>, David Veal says...
>>previously that you can't challenge gun control laws unless you have
>>something personal to lose. That is, you have been charged with a
>>violation. A member of the NRA presumably could break the law, but that
>>isn't exactly a good PR move.
>
>Right church, wrong pew, David. The courts have recently ruled that since
>only a state can be injured by a violation of the Second Amendment, only
>states have standing to sue in federal court for a violation.
Perhaps not surprisingly, you clipped out everything that I wrote
that had anything to do with your response.
[...]
That is, however, completely tangential to my point. Virtually the
entirety of modern Second Amendment law is based on a single Supreme Court
case which in which the government was the only one to present a case.
--
David Veal ve...@utk.edu
H.A.P. >Happy Jack<
>Do you know what the French gun laws are, or is you just spouting off to
>cover your ignorance?
>
>As for the movement toward deinstitutionalizing mental patients, it's not
>accurate to blame it on "the liberals." The conservatives didn't want to
>fund either the old mental hospitals or the community clinics that were
>supposed to replace them. So, instead, what we have is deranged people who
>sometimes take their meds and sometimes do not.
>
Horse pucky, pal. Name one conservative that voted for turning mental
patients out on the streets. The effort was led by Metzenbaum and his
cabal.
Your ignorance is what is showing.
tudor
>It's not a matter of funding, you chump. Nut cases have been released
>because bleeding-heard judges have ruled that they can't be held
>against their will.
This is part of the issue. But remember, Ted, that most of us define
nut-cases to include gun fetishists. Be careful what you wish for.
> As for "community clinics", those were done in
>(and rightly so) by NIMBY ("Not In My Back Yard"). Would you want one
>of those clinics set up next door to YOUR house?
I live in a residential area. There aren't any businesses of any kind near
my house, so I suppose I wouldn't want a mental health clinic there, either.
Nor would I want a gun fetishist next door. You NRA types would support me
if I tried to keep one group of nut cases from living next door, yet use
your extremist view of the constitution to force me to accept a much more
dangerous variety of nut case.
H.A.P. >Happy Jack<
>In article <6qhuoa$ntd$1...@gaia.ns.utk.edu>, David Veal says...
>>
[snip]
> 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.
>[footnote 5]'
You forgot the rest of the pararaph, and by doing so, are misleading
readers of you post. Let me complete it for you:
"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. (Aymette vs. State, 2 Hump. 154,
158)"
Which means, since the defendant did not show up, that *if* the court
found that short barreled shotguns were commonly used by the military,
they would have thrown the case out.
>
> 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
>well-regulated militia are 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. [footnote 6]
In the Miller case, the court referred to the Aymette case (2 Hump.
[21 Tennessee] 154 [1840]) which had stated on the right of each
individual to bear arms: "If the citizens have these arms in their
hands, they are prepared in the best possible manner to repel any
encroachments upon their rights, etc."
>
> 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 96 S.Ct. 3168 (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) (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.
> 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 (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 Cir. 1982) (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").
>
Yes, BUT, that's not the *whole* story (or Story, as in Justice
Story's note santioned by the Miller court). You are again
misleading. Here is an excerpt from Justice Story's exposition in the
sanctioned not in the Miller case:
"...the right of citizens to keep and bear arms has been justly
considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic..."
And reiterated by Judge Thomas Cooley, an approved commentator in the
same note:
"The right declared was meant to be a strong moral check against the
usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and as a necessary and
efficient means of regaining rights when temporarily overturned by
usurpation.
"The Right is General - It may be supposed from the phraseology of
this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only
guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not
warranted by the intent. . . . But the law may make provision for the
enrollment for all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small
number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and
if the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this
guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act
of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the
provision undoubtedly is that the people from whom the militia must be
taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no
permission or regulation of law for the purpose..."
To which the court agreed, but remanded the case back to the district
court for further proceedings. So, to sum it up, the Miller case
confirms that the people, in their capacity as individuals, could keep
and bear any arms appropriate to militia use. This would be in
keeping with the whole concept behind the Bill of Rights - the
constitution and its amendments *place restrictions on the national
government*. I say again, the case was lost because the defendants
failed to take the opportunity to demonstrate that short barreled
shotguns have utility for militia use. *Nothing* in Miller points to
collective rights.
Next time, please tell the *whole* story.
tudor
>It depends on what you mean by "adopted". The Constitution had to be
>unanimously ratified by all thirteen states in order for it to go into
>effect. And that didn't happen without the first 10 amendments.
Poor Ted. He apparently can't read article 12, which states, "The
ratifications of the conventions of nine states shall be sufficient for the
establishment of this constitution between the states so ratifying the
same."
The ninth state was New Hamshire, which ratified in June 1788. The
government declared the constitution operative on the first Wednesday of
March 1789, which was March 4. All states had ratified by 1790, a year
before the Bill of Rights was ratified.
>In this country, one has the right to be stupid. And apparently there
>are those who are not in the least bit bashful about exercising such a
>right. And I suppose it is only natural for stupid people to put their
>stupidity on parade
Yes, Ted, you do have these rights and they are inalienable.
Robert Frenchu
<tu...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>Theodore A. Kaldis wrote in message <35CC3710...@home.com>...
>
>>That _WAS_ the intent of the section (the 2nd amendment to the U.S.
>>Constitution, which was adopted with 10 amendments in place). There
>>are some revisionists who might try to tell you otherwise, but no
>>honest serious scholar on the subject will make that assertion. The
>>framers' other writings on the issue makes it clear that the intent of
>>the 2nd amendment is to protect the rights of private citizens to
>>possess and carry guns.
>
>First off, the U.S. Constitution was not adopted with 10 amendments in
>place. The constitution was adopted in 1787 and the first ten amendments,
>known collectively as the Bill of Rights, were adopted in 1791.
>Secondly, if the second amendment was so "clear" as to the supposed "right"
>of individuals to possess and carry guns, why has the Supreme Court never
>found such a right? And why has the chief lobby for the extremist
>interpretation, the National Rifle Association, not challenged the many
>Draconian ant-gun restrictions on the books in localities around the
>country? Could it be that Chucky Heston knows he'd lose?
Why not just declare them illegal and take them, then?
<SNIP>
>The usual tautological NRA sloganeering. Where gun ownership is a crime,
>there's a lot less crime and murder.
A patently false statement. Care to elaborate?
____________________________________________________
If my "assault rifle" makes me a criminal
And my encryption program makes me a terrorist
Does Dianne Feinstein's vagina make her a prostitute?
tudor
>Why not just declare them illegal and take them, then?
I don't think that's practical or necessary. I think the thing to do is buy
a bunch of them back in and then make it really hard to get parts and
ammunition. I'm sure experts could figure it out in detail, though. The ATF
and the FBI should be consulted.
>>The usual tautological NRA sloganeering. Where gun ownership is a crime,
>>there's a lot less crime and murder.
>
>A patently false statement. Care to elaborate?
Look at Japan and Europe. I do think strict gun control in US cities is a
joke given mobility. Gun control has to be a national phenomenon. In
countries where gun control is a crime, crime is low. Some people cite
Jamaica and Brazil as counterarguments, but those are lawless third world
countries. I'm talking about first-world industrial nations here.
Mark A. Fuller
Jack<) wrote:
>You forgot the rest of the pararaph, and by doing so, are misleading
>readers of you post. Let me complete it for you:
Albert forgets a lot of things. For instance, the Miller Court never
questioned the defendant's standing to invoke the 2nd amendment in the
lower court.
The standard anti-self-defence refrain today is that the 1903, 1916
and 1933 legislative acts (formalizing and federalizing state
militias) transformed the militia of the 2nd amendment, and by
implication the home of the right itself, thus limiting protection to
official members.
Miller's motion to dismiss was based on two things: 1) the '34 NFA
intruded upon the police powers of the states, and that it insulted
the "inhibition" of the 2nd amendment (the right shall not be
infringed). Had the Court felt it was a right of National Guardsmen,
they would have cited the then-recent 1903, 1916 and 1933 acts
formalizing and federalizing state militias, as well as Art I, sect 8
militia powers. Instead they cited the 1916 Harrison Narcotics Act
(tax) in defense of intruding on state police powers.
Likewise, the Miller Court devoted half its opinion to the history of
the militia. What could possibly have been a better place to include
the following language?
"and, as we all are familiar, the state militias were
radically transformed and formalized over the last two
decades -- by much the same people who passed the NFA. The
right now applies only to formal members".
This is significant insomuch that the government argued this point in
its brief. Equally significant is that the government didn't mention
these watershed events of 1903, 1916 and 1933 in support of its
position either. This tends to be important so far as those who claim
the right is that of the National Guardsmen rely upon both Miller and
those militia acts to make their case.
We have a district court, a Supreme Court, government prosecution, all
making absolutely no mention of the then-current events that today
we're told altered/formalized the nature of the individual right.
Worse, those who drafted and debated the NFA had no clue they had
legislated the right into official servitude just years earlier.
Instead, they fretted about the constitutionality of the NFA and
rationalized their actions by referring to the 1916 Harrison Narcotics
Act--not the 1903, 1916 and 1933 acts formalizing the militia. Today
we're told the Miller Court essentially endorsed congressional intent
that was absent and which nobody even _mentioned_. (see
http://www.2ndlawlib.org/journals/halcoeq.html for details on the lack
of congressional intent placing the right to arms in the Nat'l Guard,
the debates surrounding the NFA, and other instances of Congress
affirming an individual right (clueless of the states' right
position).
Instead, we have the Court citing with approval commentaries by
Justice Story and Judge Cooley. Story wrote:
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, and will generally,
even if these are successful in the first instance, enable
the people to resist and triumph over them.
Story also wrote in another work:
"One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their
purpose without resistance is, by disarming the people, and
making it an offense to keep arms . . . ."
Joseph Story, A Familiar Exposition of the
Constitution of the United States 264 (1893).
I can't think of worse support for the assertion that the right to
arms belongs to formal National Guardsmen. Actually, I can think of
something worse... what Cooley wrote:
Among the other safeguards to liberty should be mentioned the
right of the people to keep and bear arms. . . . The
alternative to a standing army is "a well-regulated militia";
but this cannot exist unless the people are trained to
bearing arms. The Federal and State constitutions therefore
provide that the right of the people to bear arms shall not
be infringed . . . .
It is a logical absurdity to speak of State constitutions protecting a
right of the state from infringement of itself. Cooley's words from
another commentary speak to this:
The right declared was meant to be a strong moral check
against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and as a
necessary and efficient means of regaining rights when
temporarily overturned by usurpation.
The Right is General--It may be supposed from the phraseology
of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was
only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an
interpretation not warranted by the intent. . . . But the law
may make provision for the enrollment of all who are fit to
perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may
wholly omit to make any provision at all; and if the right
were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty
might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act
of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning
of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom
the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and
bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law
for the purpose.
Thomas M. Cooley, The General Principles of
Constitutional Law in the United States of America
298 (3d ed. 1898).
In short, Albert's position is very contorted. Had Miller meant to
say what he says they said, we'd expect them not only to have said
some things much, much clearer -- we would also expect the drafters of
NFA and the government appellant to have said something much, much
clearer. We'd also expect to see, given that courts interpret
congressional intent, something affirming this interpretation from
Congress. We don't. Nothing in the 1903, 16, 33 radical changes to
the militia; nothing in the 1934 NFA; and nothing in subsequent
legislative acts to control firearms.
Albert's fond of reciting that "no federal court has upheld the
individual right interpretation". This is a rather simplistic mantra
(IMO) since not only is it false, but it could equally be asserted
that "no federal court has upheld the explicit congressional intent
for an individual right." Conversely it could be said, "no
congressional act upholds the states' right interpretation of federal
courts."
Albert's entire theory is fraught with these types of logical
disconnects.
Mark
Second Amendment Law Library, recent legal scholarship at:
http://www.2ndlawlib.org/
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>> It's not a matter of funding, you chump. Nut cases have been
>> released because bleeding-heard judges have ruled that they can't be
>> held against their will.
> This is part of the issue. But remember, Ted, that most of us define
> nut-cases to include gun fetishists.
Abraham Lincoln once asked a man, "If I call a dog's tail a leg, how
many legs would the dog then have?" "Five", answered the man. "No,"
Lincoln replied, "the dog would still have four legs regardless of what
I say."
> Be careful what you wish for.
And you. If a judge can declare at whim a mentally deranged person to
be sane and turn him out into society, what stops him from declaring
you to be an enemy of the state and consigning you to a concentration
camp?
>> As for "community clinics", those were done in (and rightly so) by
>> NIMBY ("Not In My Back Yard"). Would you want one of those clinics
>> set up next door to YOUR house?
> I live in a residential area.
Where do you think they want to put these "clinics"?
> There aren't any businesses of any kind near my house, so I suppose I
> wouldn't want a mental health clinic there, either.
Get a clue! They aren't looking to put these places in the business
district.
> Nor would I want a gun fetishist next door. You NRA types would
> support me if I tried to keep one group of nut cases from living next
> door, yet use your extremist view of the constitution to force me to
> accept a much more dangerous variety of nut case.
You know what, I wouldn't want to live next door to you either. After
all, guess who the real nut case is here. (Hint: this kind of nut case
is VERY dangerous -- dangerous to freedom.)
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>> It depends on what you mean by "adopted". The Constitution had to
>> be unanimously ratified by all thirteen states in order for it to go
>> into effect. And that didn't happen without the first 10
>> amendments.
> Poor Ted. He apparently can't read article 12, which states, "The
> ratifications of the conventions of nine states shall be sufficient
> for the establishment of this constitution between the states so
> ratifying the same."
Actually, Ted hasn't bothered to read this part since, oh, late '69 or
so when he was a junior in high school. But from the above reading, it
seems to say that it would be binding only upon those nine states which
had ratified it. I.e., it wouldn't be binding upon all thirteen states
until they had all ratified it. So Ted was basically on the right
track, but a little rusty on the details.
> The ninth state was New Hamshire, which ratified in June 1788. The
> government declared the constitution operative on the first Wednesday
> of March 1789, which was March 4. All states had ratified by 1790, a
> year before the Bill of Rights was ratified.
Answer me this, then: were the first 10 amendments presented along with
the Constitution at the same time, or at some later date? If at a
later date, how much later? Or are you going to chicken out on this?
>> In this country, one has the right to be stupid. And apparently
>> there are those who are not in the least bit bashful about
>> exercising such a right. And I suppose it is only natural for
>> stupid people to put their stupidity on parade.
[The above said in response to the contention that the second amendment
refers to a collective right to bear arms.]
> Yes, Ted, you do have these rights and they are inalienable.
I might have them, but you exercise them. Or if you wish to prove
otherwise, please find a reference to the term "select militia" in the
writings of the framers relating to the second amendment. Expound on,
according to such writings, what relationship the second amendment has
to a "select militia".
Mark A. Fuller
> The last word from the Ninth Circuit of the Court of Appeals on the
>subject of rights protected by the Second Amendment is Hickman v. Block, 81
>F.3d 98 (9th Cir 1996),
What's really funny about this, and an ensample of Albert's
inability to look beyond the small picture, is that at the same time
Hickman[1] was filed and heard, the Ninth Court also heard Gomez[2].
In Hickman the court relied upon Miller[3] in a reading that the 2nd
amendment only protects states. Albert wouldn't dispute this summary
of Hickman, but to be safe, the Hickman court wrote:
The seminal authority in this area [is Miller] ... 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 Gomez, Footnote 7 is in clear conflict with their holding in
Hickman. It says the 2nd Amendment "embodies the right to defend
oneself and one's home against physical attack", subject to regulation
based upon a tradeoff for organized societal protections. It then
quotes Nelson Lund's excellent Alabama Law Review article[4]:
("The fundamental right to self-preservation, together with
the basic postulate of liberal theory that citizens only
surrender their natural rights to the extent that they are
recompensed with more effective political rights, requires
that every gun control law be justified in terms of the law's
contribution to the personal security of the entire
citizenry."). At that point, the Second Amendment might trump
a statute prohibiting the ownership and possession of weapons
that would be perfectly constitutional under ordinary
circumstances. Allowing for a meaningful justification
defense ensures that 18 U.S.C. section 922(g)(1) does not
collide with the Second Amendment.
Only to a true-believer like Albert could say "the right to defend
oneself" sounds remotely like the Hickman holding that only state's
are parties to 2nd amendment protections. Even more stunning is that
the Gomez court cites Lund and Levinson[5] who clearly hold that the
2nd amendment protects an individual right. Had the Ninth Circuit
really believed what the state's right theorists proclaim, that the
right is one belonging to states (clearly stated in Hickman), then
we'd expect the Gomez court to cite the long-refuted Dennis Henigan on
what the 2nd amendment means. Not only did they cite Lund and
Levinson, they acted like they didn't even know who Henigan is.
Likewise, if the Hickman court really believed what it said in Gomez
regarding an individual right (attentuation based upon justification
of those attenuations) then you'd expect the Hickman court to have
pursued a justification of the challenged law. Instead the court ruled
he lacked standing since he isn't a state.
This kind of behavior might explain the Hickman court's butchery of
Miller -- where the Hickman court
1- depicts Miller as convicted in the lower court,
- Miller was actually exonerated via his claim of 2nd
amendment protection
2- depicts Miller as the appellant to the Supreme Court
- it was the government that appealed
3- depicts the Supreme Court as upholding the lower court conviction
- The SC reversed Miller's win and instructed hearings to
proceed--where presumably evidence would be shown re the nature of the
weapon rather than a determination of whether Miller was a "State"--
something the Miller Court never mentioned and something the Hickman
court proceeded to decide against Hickman after [ab]using Miller for
justification.
[1]
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/hickman_v_block.txt
[2]
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/us_v_gomez.txt
[3]
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/miller.txt
[4] http://www.2ndlawlib.org/journals/lundpol.html
[5] http://www.2ndlawlib.org/journals/embar.html
Mark A. Fuller
Jack<) wrote:
>Maybe you shoud try: "Where gun ownership is a crime, the risk of
>genocide skyrockets". After all, 21 million Cambodians, 16 million
>Eastern Europeans, 8 million Ugandans, and 6 million Jews can't be
>wrong.
University of Hawaii political science professor R.J. Rummel has
researched the demographic evidence regarding genocides in detail, and
he puts the total number of victims of mass murders by governments
during the twentieth century at 169,198,000. If the deaths of
military combatants are included, the death total rises to
203,000,000.
These regimes (number of deaths in parentheses) include: Nationalist
China (10,076,000 from 1928 to 1949); Japan (5,964,000); Vietnam
(1,678,000); North Korea (1,663,000); Poland (1,585,000 from 1945 to
1948); Pakistan (1,503,000); Mexico (1,417,000 from 1900 to 1920);
Yugoslavia (1,072,000 from 1944 to 1987); and Czarist Russia
(1,066,000 from 1900 to 1917)
Stated another way, the number of people killed by governments in the
twentieth century is over two-thirds of the current population of the
United States. As a cause of premature death, criminal governments
massively outpace ordinary criminals, as well as most types of
disease.
(source http://www.2ndlawlib.org/journals/lethal.html#pg392 )
[1] Statistics of Democide: Estimates, Sources and Calculations on
20th Century Genocide and Mass Murder (1994) (this book is a
statistical companion to R.J. Rummel, Death by Government (1994))
Mark
Sam A. Kersh
>Right church, wrong pew, David. The courts have recently ruled that since
>only a state can be injured by a violation of the Second Amendment, only
>states have standing to sue in federal court for a violation.
>
The SCOTUS doesn't seem to agree with you... Sheriff Mack wasn't "the
State" when he successfully got the Brady check tossed last year....
But Albot has never let facts stand in the way of his assertions.
Sam A. Kersh
NRA Life Member
TSRA, JPFO
http://www.flash.net/~csmkersh/csmkersh.htm
===============================================================
"So for me and my family, all we need for protection
against crime is some basic knowledge of where not to
travel, and how to travel there if we have to. For
instance, I've had to go into the Cabrini and Taylor Homes
in Chicago a number of times, but because they are
high-crime areas, I go in daylight, to meet someone I know,
with a bodyguard."
Robert L. Ray aka ki...@interaccess.com
Robert Silvers
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote in message <35CC3710...@home.com>...
>The current controversy here is over "shall issue" laws regarding the
>issuance of concealed carry permits. This means that, unless the state
>has a compelling reason for not doing so, they shall issue a concealed
>carry permit to every applicant. A number of states have adopted such
>an approach -- and have seen crime drop significanly as a result. On
>the other hand, areas with the highest amount of crime are areas with
>the strictest gun control. It seems that the level of crime has an
>exponential relationship to the level of gun control.
If we took all the criminals and shipped them to NJ that would solve the
problem (unless you lived in NJ). A place like Chicago is going to have
crime just because of all the criminals there. I don't think guns or gun
laws will change that. Vermont has no gun laws and very little murder but
there are less criminals there too. Guns and criminals are a bad mix but
criminals on their own are still bad where guns on their own are not.
.
tudor
>Answer me this, then: were the first 10 amendments presented along with
>the Constitution at the same time, or at some later date? If at a
>later date, how much later? Or are you going to chicken out on this?
There was widespread criticism of the original constitution during the
ratification process of its lack of specific protections for individual
rights. Many of the states ratified it only with the quid pro quo
understanding that a Bill of Rights be added. The original constitution was
ratified in 1788, went into effect in 1789 and the Bill of Rights was added
two years later.
Albert Isham
>
>On 8 Aug 1998 17:22:46 GMT, ais...@ne.infi.net (Albert Isham) wrote:
>
>> The last word from the Ninth Circuit of the Court of Appeals on the
>>subject of rights protected by the Second Amendment is Hickman v. Block, 81
>>F.3d 98 (9th Cir 1996),
>
> What's really funny about this, and an ensample of Albert's
>inability to look beyond the small picture, is that at the same time
>Hickman[1] was filed and heard, the Ninth Court also heard Gomez[2].
>
court decision, you seem to think that the Second Amendment confers an
individual right. Does that right extend to every person without limitation?
If there are limits, who determins those limits?
Albert Isham
>
>
>
>Albert's fond of reciting that "no federal court has upheld the
>individual right interpretation". This is a rather simplistic mantra
>(IMO) since not only is it false, but it could equally be asserted
>that "no federal court has upheld the explicit congressional intent
>for an individual right." Conversely it could be said, "no
>congressional act upholds the states' right interpretation of federal
>courts."
>
>
federal courts and listen to our interpretation of the Second Amendment".
Explain for us your concept of individual sovereignty and who is the master
who oversees how it it used.
Albert Isham
>
>In article <6qi1h6$eea$2...@nw003t.infi.net>,
>Albert Isham <ais...@ne.infi.net> wrote:
>>In article <6qhuoa$ntd$1...@gaia.ns.utk.edu>, David Veal says...
>>>previously that you can't challenge gun control laws unless you have
>>>something personal to lose. That is, you have been charged with a
>>>violation. A member of the NRA presumably could break the law, but that
>>>isn't exactly a good PR move.
>>
since
>>only a state can be injured by a violation of the Second Amendment, only
>>states have standing to sue in federal court for a violation.
>
>that had anything to do with your response.
>
>[...]
>
> That is, however, completely tangential to my point. Virtually the
>entirety of modern Second Amendment law is based on a single Supreme Court
>
>
And just how does that prove that the NRA's interpretation of the Second
Amendment is the correct one?
Albert Isham
JackHappy Jack< says...
>
>Yes, BUT, that's not the *whole* story (or Story, as in Justice
>Story's note santioned by the Miller court). You are again
>misleading. Here is an excerpt from Justice Story's exposition in the
>sanctioned not in the Miller case:
>
>"...the right of citizens to keep and bear arms has been justly
>considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic..."
>
Gunners love to quote these lines. They must, however, be read in the context
of the following lines which have been omitted;
One example is Levinson's use of Justice Joseph Story's Commentaries on the
Constitution of the United States.(45) Levinson lifts the following quotation
from Story:
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; and
will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the
people to resist and triumph over them.(46)
Levinson omits the sentences which immediately follow:
And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a
well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised that,
among the American people, there is a growing indifference to any system of
militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burdens, to
be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly
armed, without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly
no small danger that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to
contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this
clause of our national bill of rights.(47)
Mark A. Fuller
>In article <35d3bbea...@news.primenet.com>, Mark A. Fuller says...
>>
>>On 8 Aug 1998 17:22:46 GMT, ais...@ne.infi.net (Albert Isham) wrote:
>>
>>> The last word from the Ninth Circuit of the Court of Appeals on the
>>>subject of rights protected by the Second Amendment is Hickman v. Block, 81
>>>F.3d 98 (9th Cir 1996),
>>
>> What's really funny about this, and an ensample of Albert's
>>inability to look beyond the small picture, is that at the same time
>>Hickman[1] was filed and heard, the Ninth Court also heard Gomez[2].
>>
>Gee, Mark, let's look beyond the small picture. Contrary to every federal
>court decision,
Court decision? Hickman, or Gomez? Did you wish to discuss the
not-so-subtle differences in those decisions from the same court on
relatively the same day? how it cited Lund and Levinson for the
proposition of an individual right? how it didn't cite Henigan? how
the court butchered Miller beyond recognition? Should everyone blindly
believe it is undisputed that the 2nd amendment protects "states"?
Albert now does his usual equivocation (either to boogey men, or gray
areas, or today both):
>The NRA and other gun lobby followers are fond of reciting "ignore the
>federal courts and listen to our interpretation of the Second Amendment".
I'm not a member of the NRA.
>you seem to think that the Second Amendment confers an
>individual right. Does that right extend to every person without limitation?
>If there are limits, who determins those limits?
Albert can't defend his National Guard theory, particularly as it
relates to his interpretation of Miller. Rather than adjust his
position, he lures everyone else to discuss how an individual right to
arms isn't absolute. In this manner "see, I told you it could be
regulated." equates to his absolutel position that the right is
firmly lodged in the National Guard. Likewise. In this manner he
avoids defending (or giving up) his own absolute position that there
is no right to arms. He covers himself with the logical absurdity
that there is no difference between societal regulation (limits) short
of destruction of the right, and his own theory that nothing could
destroy the right because no right exists.
Dan Z
writes:
>Secondly, if the second amendment was so "clear" as to the supposed
"right"
>of individuals to possess and carry guns, why has the Supreme Court
never
>found such a right? And why has the chief lobby for the extremist
>interpretation, the National Rifle Association, not challenged the
many
>Draconian ant-gun restrictions on the books in localities around the
>country? Could it be that Chucky Heston knows he'd lose?
>
Actually, it is HCI and friends who oppose bringing 2nd Amendment cases
to the Supreme Court. But let's assume that the 2nd has been reworded,
and now applies only to states. That means that the states have the
right to pass gun control laws, but the Feds do not. It also means that
the states can allow their citizens to ignore all Federal gun control
laws. States can allow anyone to buy full-auto machine guns. States can
order the Feds to stop doing Brady checks.
>It could also be that there's no need to change the second amendment,
since
>it deals only with the provisions for equipping state militias and
defines
>the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms in a collective sense
only.
>
And thus allows the states to cancel all Federal gun control laws,
right?
In the United States, every time there's a mass murder with
>guns, the gun lobby uses the occasion to call for further relaxation
of our
>already loose rules on guns.
>
Really, do you think anybody believes this?
>
>
>>Where gun ownership is a crime, only criminals have guns.
>
>
>The usual tautological NRA sloganeering. Where gun ownership is a
crime,
>there's a lot less crime and murder.
Please name one country, regardless of gun control laws, where
criminals do not have firearms. Please name one gun control law that
has provably reduced violent crime.
--
antispam address list, spammers listed will be added to other spammer's lists; poetic justice....
dlfn...@empirenet.com , ja...@vcapix.com , newl...@xoom.com , jo...@ferber.com , MMol...@aol.com ,
sa...@getitright.com , ad...@getitright.com , ad...@nameserver1.net , st...@woz.org , the...@gis.net
Freya....@trenite.de , gwh...@nf.sympatico.ca , reB...@angelfire.com , bba...@horizonweb.com ,
conexion...@oninet.es , doctor.in...@oninet.es , wo...@emi.net , ver...@sfpinc.net ,
bra...@alotofmail.com , dns-s...@holonet.net , bulkem...@mailexcite.com , ma...@cstg.com ,
in...@znetwork.net , guyb...@powernet.net , ind...@tiac.net , ca...@ultimatesuccess.net ,
gwh...@nf.sympatico.ca , ad...@privacyprotectors.com, te...@privacyprotectors.com, cu...@cure.net ,
bil...@privacyprotectors.com , cv...@netcom.com , stud...@opkone.com , sup...@aumcom.com ,
kan...@hotmail.com , Astro...@coldmail.com , astr...@coldmail.com , h...@clark.net ,
ad...@financialrealitynet.com , bil...@financialrealitynet.com , a...@adventuresinmarketing.com ,
mi...@mightymedia.com , a...@hspro.com , at...@mypad.com , please...@mypad.com , stud...@opkone.com
kk...@wa.net , Win...@beezweb.com , nea...@kalama.com , kb...@worldaccessnet.com ,
cre...@creditman.net ,
James F. Mayer
writes:
>>>National Rifle Association, not challenged the many Draconian
ant-gun
>>>restrictions on the books in localities around the country? Could it
be
>>>that Chucky Heston knows he'd lose?
>>
>>previously that you can't challenge gun control laws unless you have
>>something personal to lose. That is, you have been charged with a
>>violation. A member of the NRA presumably could break the law, but
that
>>isn't exactly a good PR move.
>>
>>
>Right church, wrong pew, David. The courts have recently ruled that
since
>only a state can be injured by a violation of the Second Amendment,
only
>states have standing to sue in federal court for a violation.
>
>
>
the
>subject of rights protected by the Second Amendment is Hickman v.
Block, 81
various
>public officials of local cities for denying him a concealed carry
permit.
This is the case I keep harping about. This is such an obviously
defective case, it is a wonder why the gun control advocates keep
bringing it up other than it seems to support their agenda. Read below
what I mean.
Cite as Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3d 98 (9th Cir. 1996)
DOUGLAS RAY HICKMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant,
> 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.
Then why was Miller allowed to proceed if he had no standing to
do so? If no one has had any standing then why is there a list of
cases before an examination of the footnotes where individuals have
brought just such cas
es to court?
The seminal authority in this area continues to be
>United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), in which the Supreme
Court upheld
>a conviction under the National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C. S 1132 (1934),
for
>transporting a sawed-off shotgun in interstate commerce.
No conviction was up held in this case. In fact there was no
conviction of Miller on these charges at all up to this point.
>The Court rejected the appellant's hypothesis that the Second
Amendment protected
>his possession of that weapon.
Miller didn't appeal the case, the government did.
> 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.
States have no rights, only powers.
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.
[footnote 5]'
Didn't say a thing about Miller's not having standing, now, did
they?
> The Court's understanding follows a plain reading of the
Amendment's text.
A court that can't even determine if someone was convicted or who
the appealant was? (see above)
>The Amendment's second clause declares that the goal is to preserve
the
>security of "a free state;"
No, it is preserving "the right of the people" that is the goal.
>its first clause establishes the premise that
>well-regulated militia are 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. [footnote 6]
> Following Miller, "[i]t is clear that the Second Amendment
guarantees a
>collective rather than an individual right.
Collectives don't have rights. Would they say the same thing
about the protections declared in the first amendment? Are not "the
people" in the first the same as the ones in the Second?
" United States v. Warin, 530 F.2d
>103, 106 (6th Cir.), cert. denied 96 S.Ct. 3168 (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) (same).
Just in case someone thinks that denial of cert. means that the
Supreme Court agrees with the lower court decision, read what the
Supreme court has to say about that themselves:
"...this [Supreme] Court has rigorously insisted that such a denial [to
hear a case] carries with it no implication whatever regarding the
Court's views on the merits of a case which it has declined to
review. The Court has said this again and again; again and again
the admonition has to be repeated."
(Justice Frankfurter, Maryland v. Broadcast Radio Show, Inc. 338 US
912, 1950)
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.
>
Again, states do not have rights, only powers granted by the
people.
Foot notes:
5. The Supreme Court has not revisited the meaning of the
Second Amendment except to cite Miller for the proposition that
federal restrictions on the use of firearms by individuals do not
"trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties." Lewis v.
United States, 445 U.S. 55, 65 n.8 (1980) (upholding 18 U.S.C. App.
section 1202(a)(1)).
Let's look at the whole quote, shall we?
8. These legislative restrictions on the use of firearms are
neither based upon constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do they
trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties.
Lewis was a previously convicted felon found in possession of a
gun. Of course they don't "trench upon any constitutionally protected
liberties" because those liberties hadn't been restored. by court order
or by the governor of the state where was convicted. If Lewis had
persued those avenues and was sucessful, then he would have had a
better chance of beating his case.
It is amusing that the court in Hickman picked out only this
portion of a footnote to use as support for their decision. They
seemed to leave out the part that Lewis was a convicted felon.
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
I was right. You chickened out.
>> Answer me this, then: were the first 10 amendments presented along
>> with the Constitution at the same time, or at some later date? If
>> at a later date, how much later? Or are you going to chicken out on
>> this?
> There was widespread criticism of the original constitution during
> the ratification process of its lack of specific protections for
> individual rights.
This is an answer to a question not asked.
> Many of the states ratified it only with the quid pro quo
> understanding that a Bill of Rights be added.
This is perhaps a little more relevant, but, again, an answer to a
question not asked. (Which states, btw? And what does "quid pro quo"
mean in this context? That ratification was to be withdrawn if there
was no forthcoming bill of rights in a timely manner?)
> The original constitution was ratified in 1788, went into effect in
> 1789 and the Bill of Rights was added two years later.
From the reading of the article (12?) you previously posted, this does
not seem to be the case for states which had not ratified it by that
date. And there are still some unanswered questions. Who proposed the
Bill of Rights, i.e., the first ten amendments? Congress, by a 2/3
majority, or the Constitutional Convention? It was the Convention,
wasn't it? Which means my original assertion was essentially correct.
The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were offered as a package and
adopted practically as a whole when this government was established.
Even if there is a small time lag, these were not disparate events. It
was quite clear that without a Bill of Rights, the Constitution was not
going to be ratified. And unless all thirteen states ratified the
Constitution, it was not going to be binding on all of them.
But of course, gun-grabbers like to play word games.
Scot
> In article <35cca4f5...@207.69.200.220>, zkk...@arms.ns.org H.A.P. >Happy
> JackHappy Jack< says...
> >Yes, BUT, that's not the *whole* story (or Story, as in Justice
> >Story's note santioned by the Miller court). You are again
> >misleading. Here is an excerpt from Justice Story's exposition in the
> >sanctioned not in the Miller case:
> >"...the right of citizens to keep and bear arms has been justly
> >considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic..."
> Gunners love to quote these lines. They must, however, be read in the context
> of the following lines which have been omitted;
> One example is Levinson's use of Justice Joseph Story's Commentaries on the
> Constitution of the United States.(45) Levinson lifts the following quotation
> from Story:
> 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; and
> will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the
> people to resist and triumph over them.(46)
> Levinson omits the sentences which immediately follow:
> And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a
> well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised that,
> among the American people, there is a growing indifference to any system of
> militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burdens, to
> be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly
> armed, without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly
> no small danger that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to
> contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this
> clause of our national bill of rights.(47)
You know, Albert, you've hit on something here, but not what you think
you have. When we look at modern American society, with an elite that so
fears an armed citizenry, with organizations such as HCI, you can see
that what Justice Story was concerned with '...no small danger that
indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt...' has
occured. You and your fellow elitists are working as hard as you can to
undermine the protection afforded by the 2nd Amendment.
Thanks for bringing this to our attention.
Scot
I'm still waiting for your grammatical analysis and sentence diagram of
the Second Amendment.
And for the evidence that will falsify my statement that no gun control
law has ever prevented a criminal from obtaining any firearm, nor has
any gun control law ever reduced a high rate of firearms related violent
crime.
What was your source of commission, Branch, MOS, and Year Group? When
did you serve in 'Nam, in what AO, and with what unit(s)?
Scot
<snip>
> The seminal authority in this area continues to be
> United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), in which the Supreme Court
> upheld a conviction under the National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C. S 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.
Albert,
Doesn't it bother you one teensy bit that 1) Miller wasn't convicted, so
that they couldn't have upheld a conviction, and 2) the government was
the appellant?
Any concerns that you are relying on a rulling that has holes in it you
could fly a C-5A through?
Probably not, how does it feel to be a shill? Especially after having
been trusted with a commision in the US military by the people of the
US?
<snip>
James F. Mayer
writes:
>
>In article <35d3bbea...@news.primenet.com>, Mark A. Fuller
says...
>>
>>On 8 Aug 1998 17:22:46 GMT, ais...@ne.infi.net (Albert Isham) wrote:
>>
the
>>>subject of rights protected by the Second Amendment is Hickman v.
Block, 81
>>>F.3d 98 (9th Cir 1996),
>>
>>inability to look beyond the small picture, is that at the same time
>>Hickman[1] was filed and heard, the Ninth Court also heard Gomez[2].
>>
>Gee, Mark, let's look beyond the small picture. Contrary to every
federal
>court decision, you seem to think that the Second Amendment confers an
>individual right. Does that right extend to every person without
limitation?
>If there are limits, who determins those limits?
>
>
From: ais...@ne.infi.net (Albert Isham)
Subject: Re: NRA Arms Criminals
Date: 30 Apr 1997 16:16:20 GMT
“...We need to confiscate guns from the lawless and the disloyal and we
want any confiscating to be conducted as authorized by law and not
conducted by "armed citizen guerrillas" who may be the real tyrants."
Are these the “lawless and the disloyal” of which you speak?
http://www.us.net/phoenix/
Gun Control in Germany, 1928-1945
by Dr. William L. Pierce
* Jews, it should be noted, were not Germans, even if they had been
born in Germany. The National Socialists defined citizenship in ethnic
terms, and under Hitler Jews were not accorded full rights of
citizenship. National Socialist legislation progressively excluded
Jews from key professions: teaching, the media, the practice of law,
etc. The aim was not only to free German life from an oppressive and
degenerative Jewish influence, butto persuade Jews to emigrate.
James F. Mayer
writes:
>
>In article <6qi79q$s5e$1...@gaia.ns.utk.edu>, David Veal says...
>>
>>In article <6qi1h6$eea$2...@nw003t.infi.net>,
>>Albert Isham <ais...@ne.infi.net> wrote:
held
>>>>previously that you can't challenge gun control laws unless you
have
>>>>something personal to lose. That is, you have been charged with a
>>>>violation. A member of the NRA presumably could break the law, but
that
>>>>isn't exactly a good PR move.
>>>
>>>Right church, wrong pew, David. The courts have recently ruled that
>since
>>>only a state can be injured by a violation of the Second Amendment,
only
>>>states have standing to sue in federal court for a violation.
>>
>> Perhaps not surprisingly, you clipped out everything that I
wrote
>>that had anything to do with your response.
>>
>>[...]
>>
>> That is, however, completely tangential to my point. Virtually
the
>>entirety of modern Second Amendment law is based on a single Supreme
Court
>>case which in which the government was the only one to present a
case.
>>
>>
>And just how does that prove that the NRA's interpretation of the
Second
>Amendment is the correct one?
James F. Mayer
writes:
>
>In article <35d1b31d...@news.primenet.com>, Mark A. Fuller
says...
>>
>>
>>
>>Albert's fond of reciting that "no federal court has upheld the
>>individual right interpretation". This is a rather simplistic mantra
>>(IMO) since not only is it false, but it could equally be asserted
>>that "no federal court has upheld the explicit congressional intent
>>for an individual right." Conversely it could be said, "no
>>congressional act upholds the states' right interpretation of federal
>>courts."
>>
>>
>federal courts and listen to our interpretation of the Second
Amendment".
>Explain for us your concept of individual sovereignty and who is the
master
>who oversees how it it used.
From: ais...@ne.infi.net (Albert Isham)
James F. Mayer
writes:
>
>In article <35cca4f5...@207.69.200.220>, zkk...@arms.ns.org
H.A.P. >Happy
>JackHappy Jack< says...
>>
>
>>Story's note santioned by the Miller court). You are again
>>misleading. Here is an excerpt from Justice Story's exposition in
the
>>sanctioned not in the Miller case:
>>
>>"...the right of citizens to keep and bear arms has been justly
>>considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic..."
>>
context
>of the following lines which have been omitted;
>
>
>One example is Levinson's use of Justice Joseph Story's Commentaries
on the
>Constitution of the United States.(45) Levinson lifts the following
quotation
>from Story:
>
>will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance,
enable the
>people to resist and triumph over them.(46)
>
>Levinson omits the sentences which immediately follow:
>
> And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the
importance of a
>well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be
disguised that,
>among the American people, there is a growing indifference to any
system of
>militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its
burdens, to
>be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people
duly
>armed, without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is
certainly
>no small danger that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to
>contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by
this
>clause of our national bill of rights.(47)
>
>
From: ais...@ne.infi.net (Albert Isham)
David Veal
In article <6qii7p$jnk$3...@nw001t.infi.net>,
Albert Isham <ais...@ne.infi.net> wrote:
>In article <6qi79q$s5e$1...@gaia.ns.utk.edu>, David Veal says...
>> Perhaps not surprisingly, you clipped out everything that I wrote
>>that had anything to do with your response.
>>
>>[...]
>>
>> That is, however, completely tangential to my point. Virtually the
>>entirety of modern Second Amendment law is based on a single Supreme Court
>>case which in which the government was the only one to present a case.
>
>And just how does that prove that the NRA's interpretation of the Second
>Amendment is the correct one?
Before I bother answering that (since I've never said anything
remotely like, "The NRA is right"), riddle me this: what exactly do you
think the NRA's interpretation of the Second Amendment is? I ask because
I've asked before and you've never answered.
The individual right interpretation (which you may characterize as
the "NRA's interpretation" if you care to, I suppose) is correct because
the collective right interpretation is either incoherent or nonexistent,
depending on which approach you take.
--
David Veal ve...@utk.edu
Mark A. Fuller
>Gunners love to quote these lines. They must, however, be read in the context
>of the following lines which have been omitted;
>
>One example is Levinson's use of Justice Joseph Story's Commentaries on the
>Constitution of the United States.(45) Levinson lifts the following quotation
>from Story:
>
> 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; and
>will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the
>people to resist and triumph over them.(46)
>
>Levinson omits the sentences which immediately follow:
>
> And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a
>well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised that,
>among the American people, there is a growing indifference to any system of
>militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burdens, to
>be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly
>armed, without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly
>no small danger that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to
>contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this
>clause of our national bill of rights.(47)
Red-herring. The issue wasn't Levinson's article[1], it was the
Supreme Court's decision in Miller and their citing of Justice Story
and judge Cooley: two commentators who clearly conflict with the idea
that Miller held the right to be a "state's right".
Your response intimates that the these sentences from Story mention a
state's right when they don't; that the Court didn't cite Cooley, when
it did; all while the Court ruled the right moved from the individual
(as a counterweight against government) to the government (due to
disuse), when it uttered zero words to that effect. And that this
reflects the legislation formalizing the miltitia during the prior 3
to 25 years despite those who passed the legislation saying nothing
about the 2nd amendment, and the Miller Court likewise saying nothing
about the legislation--while at the same time citing a narcotics tax
act from the *same* period.
What's strangely repetitive in this is that the "state's right"
position is largely made up of what wasn't said. Increasingly the
anti-self-defense position looks a great deal like ancient gnosticsm
(what with references to "Hidden History", or a complete re-write of
Miller by the Hickman court).
Be that as it may, to shed light on the "danger" Story mentioned, from
another of his works:
"One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their
purpose without resistance is, by disarming the people, and
making it an offense to keep arms . . . ."
Joseph Story, A Familiar Exposition of the
Constitution of the United States 264 (1893).
You won't find that in Henigan's article which puports to clarify
Levinson's [mis]use.
Regarding the portion of Story whch Levinson didn't quote, how it
relates to the part he did, and whether government utilization of a
militia is at odds with the ideology behind dispersed power, see David
Williams's response to Levinson, "The Terrifying Second Amendment"
http://www.2ndlawlib.org/journals/willterr.html
Williams was responded to by Volokh
http://www.law.ucla.edu/faculty/volokh/common.htm
and
http://www.law.ucla.edu/faculty/volokh/amazing.htm
and by Denning:
http://www.2ndlawlib.org/journals/denpall.html
[1] http://www.2ndlawlib.org/journals/embar.html
Albert Isham
>
>
>Albert,
>
>Doesn't it bother you one teensy bit that 1) Miller wasn't convicted, so
>that they couldn't have upheld a conviction, and 2) the government was
>the appellant?
>
interpretation of the Second Amendment and the law under which he was charged
was not overturned?
Scot, how do you really feel about the Second Amendment? Should privately
owned guns be immune to the control of public authority?
Albert Isham
>
>Albert Isham wrote:
>
>
>> The NRA and other gun lobby followers are fond of reciting "ignore the
>> federal courts and listen to our interpretation of the Second Amendment".
>> Explain for us your concept of individual sovereignty and who is the
master
>> who oversees how it it used.
>
>Hey Albert,
>
>Let's look at this rejection you have of the idea of individual rights,
>shall we?
>
>Which of the other rights recognized by the Bill of Rights are subject
>to this 'right of control' that you believe in? Can Congress limit, by
>statute, the rights of free speech, freedom of the press, the 4th
>Amendment rights to security from government searches, the 5th Amendment
>rights to grand jury indictment, the bar against double jeopardy, or
>self incrimination?
There are limits on all of these freedoms. In a society such as ours my
freedom stops where it intrudes on yours.
>
>It it within your personal understanding of Constitutional law that
>these individual rights don't exist?
>
>
Is your gun a sacred cow? Should privately owned guns be immune to public
authority?
Albert Isham
>
>
>You know, Albert, you've hit on something here, but not what you think
>you have. When we look at modern American society, with an elite that so
>fears an armed citizenry,
That "armed citizenry" is responsible for our high murder rate. What do you
think about an elite that doesn't give a damn about our murder rate so long
as they can have all the guns they want?
> with organizations such as HCI, you can see
>that what Justice Story was concerned with '...no small danger that
>indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt...' has
>occured. You and your fellow elitists are working as hard as you can to
>undermine the protection afforded by the 2nd Amendment.
>
I am working hard to lower our murder rate. Since privately owned guns are
private property, they have nothing to do with the Second Amendment. The
Second Amendment is used by gunners as a stalking horse to enrich their
private collection of guns.
Scott Hillard
>>Why not just declare them illegal and take them, then?
>I don't think that's practical or necessary. I think the thing to do is buy
>a bunch of them back in and then make it really hard to get parts and
>ammunition.
Now there's a sure bet.
Hang on, they tried that in Australia, and people didn't go for it.
$600 million in taxpayer's money pissed against the wall on a useless
exercise. Most owners of the good stuff buried it, and a huge
proportion of the money handed over for old, crap guns was used to buy
newer, more powerful, legal guns.
Of course, it did nothing to stop the black market trade in weapons.
Firearm deaths in several states INCREASED after the buy-back and
passage of new gun laws.
Whoops.
>I'm sure experts could figure it out in detail, though. The ATF
>and the FBI should be consulted.
What a fine idea, leave things to the baby murderers.
>>>The usual tautological NRA sloganeering. Where gun ownership is a crime,
>>>there's a lot less crime and murder.
>>A patently false statement. Care to elaborate?
>Look at Japan and Europe.
Do you mean Switzerland, where every second house has a full-auto
rifle in the cupboard?
Where, in several Cantons, you don't even need a permit to purchase
and carry a handgun? Where civilians can buy military rifles, and get
ammunition SUBSIDISED by the Government?
Or perhaps France, where civilian ownership of automatic weapons is
legal, where anyone can get a permit to keep a handgun in the home for
self defence?
How about Finland - where there are no restrictions on the ownership
of semi-automatic longarms?
Don't know too much about Europe, do you boy?
>I do think strict gun control in US cities is a
>joke given mobility. Gun control has to be a national phenomenon.
Sure works in Mexico. Whoops.
----------
Wine is strong, a King is stronger, women are even stronger, but truth will conquer all.
Wayne A. Stoutenger, M.D.
> authority?
Answer- YES (you moron), read the 2nd Amendment. Like it or not, there
it is, "shall not be infringed"
Andrew Franz
member of the armed forces?
That every citizen attends military camps once a year?
Nah - why complicate a good argument with facts.
Scott Hillard wrote:
>
> On Sat, 8 Aug 1998 16:42:59 -0700, "tudor" <tu...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
<SNIP>
>
> >Look at Japan and Europe.
>
> Do you mean Switzerland, where every second house has a full-auto
> rifle in the cupboard?
>
> Where, in several Cantons, you don't even need a permit to purchase
> and carry a handgun? Where civilians can buy military rifles, and get
> ammunition SUBSIDISED by the Government?
>
> Or perhaps France, where civilian ownership of automatic weapons is
> legal, where anyone can get a permit to keep a handgun in the home for
> self defence?
>
> How about Finland - where there are no restrictions on the ownership
> of semi-automatic longarms?
>
> Don't know too much about Europe, do you boy?
>
> >I do think strict gun control in US cities is a
> >joke given mobility. Gun control has to be a national phenomenon.
>
> Sure works in Mexico. Whoops.
>
> ----------
>
> Wine is strong, a King is stronger, women are even stronger, but truth will conquer all.
--
Andrew Franz
Spammers, this is for you:
mailto:webmaster@localhost,
mailto:abuse@localhost,
mailto:postmaster@localhost,
mailto:ab...@uu.net,
mailto:ab...@prodigy.net,
mailto:sp...@earthlink.net,
mailto:ab...@netcom.com
Andrew Franz
<Xwas...@widomaker.comX>
Is your precious constitution cast in stone?
What does the "2nd amendment" have to do with "should"?
James F. Mayer
writes:
>In article <35CD4E...@mail.idt.net>, Scot says...
>>
>>
>>Albert,
>>
>>Doesn't it bother you one teensy bit that 1) Miller wasn't convicted,
so
>>that they couldn't have upheld a conviction, and 2) the government
was
>>the appellant?
>>
>Does it bother you that Miller was defended on the basis of the NRA's
>interpretation of the Second Amendment and the law under which he was
charged
>was not overturned?
>
privately
>
>
constitution
James F. Mayer
writes:
>
>In article <35CD50...@mail.idt.net>, Scot says...
>>
>>Albert Isham wrote:
>>
>
>>
>>> The NRA and other gun lobby followers are fond of reciting "ignore
the
Amendment".
>>> Explain for us your concept of individual sovereignty and who is
the
>master
>>> who oversees how it it used.
>>
>>Hey Albert,
>>
>>Let's look at this rejection you have of the idea of individual
rights,
>>shall we?
>>
>>Which of the other rights recognized by the Bill of Rights are
subject
>>to this 'right of control' that you believe in? Can Congress limit,
by
>>statute, the rights of free speech, freedom of the press, the 4th
>>Amendment rights to security from government searches, the 5th
Amendment
>>rights to grand jury indictment, the bar against double jeopardy, or
>>self incrimination?
>
>There are limits on all of these freedoms. In a society such as ours
my
>freedom stops where it intrudes on yours.
And you are attempting to intrude on ours.
>
>>
>>It it within your personal understanding of Constitutional law that
>>these individual rights don't exist?
>>
>>
>Is your gun a sacred cow? Should privately owned guns be immune to
public
>authority?
>
"The right to regulate" is nothing more than a gun control lobby smoke
screen for their real agenda. They want to prohibit the American
people from making any laws unless HCI or an other gun control lobby
organization gives their approval. They want only the politicians to
pass laws that promote their agenda. When such laws are put up for a
vote before the people, the general citizenry, they are resoundingly
defeated like in Washington State.
Initiative 676 Gun Control
7,419 of 7,420 precincts - 99 percent
Yes, 409,515 - 29.6 percent
No, 973,974 - 70.4 percent
James F. Mayer
writes:
>
>In article <35CD52...@mail.idt.net>, Scot says...
>>
>
>>
>>You know, Albert, you've hit on something here, but not what you
think
>>you have. When we look at modern American society, with an elite that
so
>>fears an armed citizenry,
>
>That "armed citizenry" is responsible for our high murder rate. What
do you
>think about an elite that doesn't give a damn about our murder rate so
long
>as they can have all the guns they want?
>
>> with organizations such as HCI, you can see
>>that what Justice Story was concerned with '...no small danger that
>>indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt...' has
>>occured. You and your fellow elitists are working as hard as you can
to
>>undermine the protection afforded by the 2nd Amendment.
>>
>I am working hard to lower our murder rate.
No, you are working hard to get a police state implemented.
Since privately owned guns are
>private property, they have nothing to do with the Second Amendment.
"The right to regulate" is nothing more than a gun control lobby smoke
screen for their real agenda. They want to prohibit the American
people from making any laws unless HCI or an other gun control lobby
organization gives their approval. They want only the politicians to
pass laws that promote their agenda. When such laws are put up for a
vote before the people, the general citizenry, they are resoundingly
defeated like in Washington State.
Initiative 676 Gun Control
7,419 of 7,420 precincts - 99 percent
Yes, 409,515 - 29.6 percent
No, 973,974 - 70.4 percent
The
>Second Amendment is used by gunners as a stalking horse to enrich
their
>private collection of guns.
>
>
No, Albert, you are working hard to get you police state
implemented.
Christopher Morton
<afr...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>Charming.
>
><Xwas...@widomaker.comX>
>
>Wayne A. Stoutenger, M.D. wrote:
>>
>> Should privately owned guns be immune to public
>> > authority?
>>
>> Answer- YES (you moron), read the 2nd Amendment. Like it or not, there
>> it is, "shall not be infringed"
>
>Is your precious constitution cast in stone?
Do you imagine a time when the 13th amendment should be repealed?
>What does the "2nd amendment" have to do with "should"?
What does the 13th?
---
Gun control, the theory that Black people will be
better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
Check out:
http://extra.newsguy.com/~cmorton
http://www.firstnethou.com/gunsite/moore.html
bill...@hotmail.com
Andrew Franz <afr...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> Charming.
>
> <Xwas...@widomaker.comX>
>
> Wayne A. Stoutenger, M.D. wrote:
> >
> > Should privately owned guns be immune to public
> > > authority?
> >
> > Answer- YES (you moron), read the 2nd Amendment. Like it or not, there
> > it is, "shall not be infringed"
>
> Is your precious constitution cast in stone?
>
>
> Andrew Franz
>
.......................................................................
"Should" indicates the presence of a personal opinion, which are somewhat less
than legally enforcable. The Constitution is the LAW, whether you like it or
not, and that IS enforcable.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Mark A. Fuller
>In article <35CD52...@mail.idt.net>, Scot says...
>>
>
>>
>>You know, Albert, you've hit on something here, but not what you think
>>you have. When we look at modern American society, with an elite that so
>>fears an armed citizenry,
>
>That "armed citizenry" is responsible for our high murder rate.
That armed citizenry consists of 70 million individuals in possession
of 220+ million guns. An FBI data run of murder arrestees nationally
over a four year period in the 1960s found 74.7% to have had prior
arrests for violent felony or burglary. In one study, the Bureau of
Criminal Statistics found that 76.7% of murder arrestees had criminal
histories as did 78% of defendants in murder prosecutions nationally.
In another FBI data run of murder arrestees over a one year period,
77.9% had prior criminal records. Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Uniform Crime Rep. 38 (1971).
The annual Chicago Police Department bulletin Murder Analysis
shows the following figures for the percentage of murderers who had
prior crime records:
1991: 77.15%
1990: 74.63%
1989: 74.22%
1988: 73.59%
1987: 73.81%
Five year average for 1987-1991: 74.68%
When the vast majority of murderers have life histories of
violence, felony records, and substance abuse. (Bureau of Justice
Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Justice, Murder in Families 5 tbl. 7 (1994)
[hereinafter Murder in Families]; Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S.
Dep't of Justice, Murder in Large Urban Counties, 1988 (1993).) and
that murderers average a prior adult criminal career of six years,
including four major adult felony arrests (Federal Bureau of
Investigation, Uniform Crime Rep. 43 (1975).), or that that when the
murder occurred "[a]bout 11% of murder arrestees [were] actually on
pre-trial release"--that is, they were awaiting trial for another
offense--(John Dilulio, The Question of Black Crime, 117 Pub. Interest
3, 16 (1994).) it seems pedantic to portray all armed citizens as
equal contributors to the violence problem when it actually looks like
a small, highly identifiable, aberant portion responsible for the vast
bulk. In fact, removing their contribution would make our violence
rates look much like "civilized europe".
>What do you
>think about an elite that doesn't give a damn about our murder rate so long
>as they can have all the guns they want?
What do you think about an elite that employs bigotry to stigmatize
all gun owners based upon the acts of an aberant few in order to
pursue what more appropriately appears to be a culture war?
>I am working hard to lower our murder rate. Since privately owned guns are
>private property, they have nothing to do with the Second Amendment. The
>Second Amendment is used by gunners as a stalking horse to enrich their
>private collection of guns.
Hence my confusion when you act like the 2nd amendment is relevant,
asking questions about "reasonable limits" as if seeking common
ground, when in fact "limits" are a non-sequitur to you. It's a
dishonest ruse. For you, there is no right for their to be "limits"
placed upon. That someone might condone "limits" short of destroying
the right is irrelevant in a discussion with you since you hold it is
not a right and nothing is off-limits.
Albert Isham
>
>
>>
>> Wayne A. Stoutenger, M.D. wrote:
>> >
>> > Should privately owned guns be immune to public
>> > > authority?
>> >
>> > Answer- YES (you moron), read the 2nd Amendment. Like it or not, there
>> > it is, "shall not be infringed"
>>
>> Is your precious constitution cast in stone?
>> What does the "2nd amendment" have to do with "should"?
>>
>"Should" indicates the presence of a personal opinion, which are somewhat less
>than legally enforcable. The Constitution is the LAW, whether you like it or
>not, and that IS enforcable.
>
>
And the federal courts have ruled unanimously that the people have the right to
regulate privately owned guns.
Albert Isham
>
>>Scot, how do you really feel about the Second Amendment? Should
>privately
>>owned guns be immune to the control of public authority?
>>
>>
> This is the "public authority" that Albert wants to control guns:
>
>constitution
>From: ais...@ne.infi.net (Albert Isham)
>Subject: Re: NRA Arms Criminals
>Date: 30 Apr 1997 16:16:20 GMT
>
>“...We need to confiscate guns from the lawless and the disloyal and we
>want any confiscating to be conducted as authorized by law and not
>conducted by "armed citizen guerrillas" who may be the real tyrants."
>
So, James, I take it that you do not want to disarm the lawless or the
disloyal. This is an admission that you want to arm criminals (the lawless).
When will you give us your source for denying that 70 percent of murders are
committed with guns?
Albert Isham
>
>>>
>>>Let's look at this rejection you have of the idea of individual
>rights,
>>>shall we?
>>>
>>>Which of the other rights recognized by the Bill of Rights are
>subject
>>>to this 'right of control' that you believe in? Can Congress limit,
>by
>>>statute, the rights of free speech, freedom of the press, the 4th
>>>Amendment rights to security from government searches, the 5th
>Amendment
>>>rights to grand jury indictment, the bar against double jeopardy, or
>>>self incrimination?
>>
>>There are limits on all of these freedoms. In a society such as ours
>my
>>freedom stops where it intrudes on yours.
>
> And you are attempting to intrude on ours.
>
I merely say that them people have the right to regulate privately owned
guns. It is you who want to deny the people that right.
>>>
>>Is your gun a sacred cow? Should privately owned guns be immune to
>public
>>authority?
>>
>
>"The right to regulate" is nothing more than a gun control lobby smoke
>screen for their real agenda.
What matters is the will of the people and polls show that the majority want
stricter gun control.
> They want to prohibit the American
>people from making any laws unless HCI or an other gun control lobby
>organization gives their approval.
It is the NRA that tells the people they can't regulate guns because of
constitutional reasons. However, tha NRA does push through gun laws like CCW
so what they really want is the power to dictate to us what gun laws we may
have.
> They want only the politicians to
>pass laws that promote their agenda.
That sounds like the NRA.
> When such laws are put up for a
>vote before the people, the general citizenry, they are resoundingly
>defeated like in Washington State.
>
> Initiative 676 Gun Control
> 7,419 of 7,420 precincts - 99 percent
> Yes, 409,515 - 29.6 percent
> No, 973,974 - 70.4 percent
>
It should be noted that the NRA spent about 5 million dollars to defeat this
measure and some of their campaigning was not entirely truthful.
Albert Isham
>
>. You and your fellow elitists are working as hard as you can
>to
>>>undermine the protection afforded by the 2nd Amendment.
>>>
>
>JFM. No, you are working hard to get a police state implemented.
>
AI. James, I am working to allow the people their right to regulate
privately owned guns. That is not a police state. You and the NRA want to
tie the hands of the people by telling them that gun laws you don't approve
of are unconstitutional. This is a police state with the gun lobby calling
the shots.
>AI. Since privately owned guns are
>>private property, they have nothing to do with the Second Amendment.
>
In article <6qcno6$p...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>, James F. Mayer says...
>
>>
>>AI. Guns are used in 70 percent of all murders in this country.
>
>JFM. No, they are not but Albert keeps spreading his propaganda
> hoping some sucker will be drawn in.
>
AI. On page 17 of the FBI Uniform Crime Report, 1996, it states, "As in
previous years, firearms were the weapons used in approximately 7 of
every 10 murders committed in the Nation."
James, what is the source of your propaganda? I suspect this is not the
first time you have been exposed to this statistic. When will you get it
straight?
James, you labeled the FBI report as "propaganda". What is your information
and where did you get it?
James, what is yoiur answer?
RAY
>MF: What's really funny about this, and an ensample of Albert's
> inability to look beyond the small picture, is that at the same time
> Hickman[1] was filed and heard, the Ninth Court also heard Gomez[2].
RR: What's really funny about this is that Mark has not
indicated that two of the three judges on the Gomez panel
offered concurring opinions that disagreed with the use of
'footnote 7' (see Mark's entire post below).
Let's set the record straight on who ruled what. In
the Hickman decision, the three judge appellate panel
comprised judges Hall (who wrote the opinion), Noonan and
Shubb.
In the Gomez decision the three judge panel comprised
judges Kozinski (who wrote the opinion), Hall and Hawkins.
Obviously judges Hall, Noonan and Shubb agreed that the
2nd Amendment applies only to the States. And in the Gomez
decision, through their objections to the use of footnote 7,
judges Hall and Hawkins continued to support that
states-right theme.
Using both cases to tally up the score, we have judges
Hall, Hawkins, Noonan and Shubb all supporting the
States-rights theory, and only judge Kozinski (the only one
to wrote and supported footnote 7) supporting the individual
rights theory.
In this light, Mark Fuller's comments below appear a
bit hollow.
>MF: In Hickman the court relied upon Miller[3] in a reading that the 2nd
> amendment only protects states. Albert wouldn't dispute this summary
> of Hickman, but to be safe, the Hickman court wrote:
> The seminal authority in this area [is Miller] ... 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 Gomez, Footnote 7 is in clear conflict with their holding in
> Hickman. It says the 2nd Amendment "embodies the right to defend
> oneself and one's home against physical attack", subject to regulation
> based upon a tradeoff for organized societal protections. It then
> quotes Nelson Lund's excellent Alabama Law Review article[4]:
> ("The fundamental right to self-preservation, together with
> the basic postulate of liberal theory that citizens only
> surrender their natural rights to the extent that they are
> recompensed with more effective political rights, requires
> that every gun control law be justified in terms of the law's
> contribution to the personal security of the entire
> citizenry."). At that point, the Second Amendment might trump
> a statute prohibiting the ownership and possession of weapons
> that would be perfectly constitutional under ordinary
> circumstances. Allowing for a meaningful justification
> defense ensures that 18 U.S.C. section 922(g)(1) does not
> collide with the Second Amendment.
>
> Only to a true-believer like Albert could say "the right to defend
> oneself" sounds remotely like the Hickman holding that only state's
> are parties to 2nd amendment protections. Even more stunning is that
> the Gomez court cites Lund and Levinson[5] who clearly hold that the
> 2nd amendment protects an individual right. Had the Ninth Circuit
> really believed what the state's right theorists proclaim, that the
> right is one belonging to states (clearly stated in Hickman), then
> we'd expect the Gomez court to cite the long-refuted Dennis Henigan on
> what the 2nd amendment means. Not only did they cite Lund and
> Levinson, they acted like they didn't even know who Henigan is.
>
> Likewise, if the Hickman court really believed what it said in Gomez
> regarding an individual right (attentuation based upon justification
> of those attenuations) then you'd expect the Hickman court to have
> pursued a justification of the challenged law. Instead the court ruled
> he lacked standing since he isn't a state.
>
> This kind of behavior might explain the Hickman court's butchery of
> Miller -- where the Hickman court
>
> 1- depicts Miller as convicted in the lower court,
> - Miller was actually exonerated via his claim of 2nd
> amendment protection
>
> 2- depicts Miller as the appellant to the Supreme Court
> - it was the government that appealed
>
> 3- depicts the Supreme Court as upholding the lower court conviction
> - The SC reversed Miller's win and instructed hearings to
> proceed--where presumably evidence would be shown re the nature of the
> weapon rather than a determination of whether Miller was a "State"--
> something the Miller Court never mentioned and something the Hickman
> court proceeded to decide against Hickman after [ab]using Miller for
> justification.
>
> [1]
> http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/hickman_v_block.txt
>
> [2]
> http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/us_v_gomez.txt
>
> [3]
> http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/miller.txt
>
> [4] http://www.2ndlawlib.org/journals/lundpol.html
>
> [5] http://www.2ndlawlib.org/journals/embar.html
Albert Isham
>
>
>>AI. What do you
>>as they can have all the guns they want?
>
>all gun owners based upon the acts of an aberant few in order to
>pursue what more appropriately appears to be a culture war?
>
the aberant few who commit gun violence?
>>AI. I am working hard to lower our murder rate. Since privately owned guns
are
>>private property, they have nothing to do with the Second Amendment. The
>>Second Amendment is used by gunners as a stalking horse to enrich their
>>private collection of guns.
>
>MF. Hence my confusion when you act like the 2nd amendment is relevant,
>asking questions about "reasonable limits" as if seeking common
>ground, when in fact "limits" are a non-sequitur to you.
AI. I propose no limits. I only point out that the American people have the
right to make laws regulating privately owned guns. Privately owned guns are
private property, not militia arms.
>MF. It's a
>dishonest ruse. For you, there is no right for their to be "limits"
>placed upon. That someone might condone "limits" short of destroying
>the right is irrelevant in a discussion with you since you hold it is
>not a right and nothing is off-limits.
>
AI. The Constitution provides the limits in which the people can make laws.
The courts have ruled repeatedly that the people have this right.
Mark, I asked you to explain the practical application of the individual right
as it pertains to the Second Amendment. May we expect your response soon?
Sam A. Kersh
>There are limits on all of these freedoms. In a society such as ours my
>freedom stops where it intrudes on yours.
And LTC(1) Is-a_Sham's limits were expressed as follows:
From: ais...@ne.infi.net (Albert Isham)
Subject: Re: NRA Arms Criminals
Date: 30 Apr 1997 16:16:20 GMT
“...We need to confiscate guns from the lawless and the disloyal and we
want any confiscating to be conducted as authorized by law and not
conducted by "armed citizen guerrillas" who may be the real tyrants."
1. LTC = Little Toady Creature
Sam A. Kersh
NRA Life Member
TSRA Life Member
L.E.A.A., JPFO
http://www.flash.net/~csmkersh/csmkersh.htm
=======================================================
"John Lott has done the most extensive, thorough, and sophisticated study
we have on the effects of loosening gun control laws. Regardless of whether
one agrees with his conclusions, his work is mandatory reading for anyone who
is open-minded and serious about gun control issues. Especially fascinating
is his account of the often unscrupulous reactions to his research by gun
control advocates, academic critics, and the news media."
Gary Kleck
Professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice
Florida State University
John Johnson
`Operation Alienate' Psychopolitician/Propagandist `LtC. Albie Is
A Sham' (Kentuckian James Albert Isham <ais...@ne.infi.net>) writes:
> In article <35CD4E...@mail.idt.net>, Scot says...
>
>> Albert,
>>
>> Doesn't it bother you one teensy bit that 1) Miller wasn't
>> convicted, so that they couldn't have upheld a conviction,
>> and 2) the government was the appellant?
Lurkers should take *careful* note that James Albert *doesn't*
answer the question!
> Does it bother you that Miller was defended on the basis of
> the NRA's interpretation of the Second Amendment and the law
> under which he was charged was not overturned?
It most certainly *was* "overturned"; when presiding Judge
Heartsill Ragon wrote:
"The indictment is based upon the Act of June 26, 1934, C. 757,
Section 11, 48 Stat. 1239, 26 U.S.C.A. section 1132j. The court
is of the opinion that this section is invalid in that it violates
the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States,
U.S.C.A., providing, "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 demurrer is accordingly sustained."
<http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/us_v_miller.txt>
The United States Solicitor General appealed the case to the
SCOTUS; citing almost the same "claims" you and "Little Dennie"
Henigan have made: and the SCOTUS *ignored* them; sending the
case back only for determination that the particular Stevens
double-barreled shotgun possessed by Jack Miller and/or Frank
Layton would qualify as a "militia weapon" and thereby fall
under the *protection* of the 2ndAmnd:
"The Court can not take judicial notice that a shotgun having
a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable
relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated
militia; and therefore can not say that the Second Amendment
guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon."
<http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/mill
r.txt>
[take *careful* notice of the use of the word *citizen*; and not
"militia member"; in this decision]
The SG and AUSA for the Eastern District of Arkansas "saw the
handwriting on the wall" as to what would have occured had they
*actually* *held* the "evidenciary hearing" the SCOTUS declared
be held:
"The cause will be remanded for further proceedings." Ibid.
Had such "further proceeding" actually been held; Miller/Layton
attorney Paul Gutensohn would only have had to present evidence
of the use of SBS (short-barreled shotguns) in both the Spanish/
American War (in Cuba by the 1st Volunteer United States Cavalry;
aka: the "Rough Riders") and "The War to End All Wars" (aka: WW-I)
by the "Doughboys" as "trench brooms" and the entire NFA'34 would
have been "flushed down the toilet" (as it rightfully should be now!).
BTW: the Government couldn't get away today with what it did in
the U.S. v. Miller, et al." case; i.e.: get a court hearing w/o the
presence of *at least* the Defendants' attorney of record!
> Scot, how do you really feel about the Second Amendment? Should
> privately owned guns be immune to the control of public authority?
Silly boy: what part of "...shall NOT be infringed" do you
*NOT* understand?!?
--John Johnson/TX Peace Officer (15+ Years) supporting the
Texas and U.S. Constitutions, the BoR, the 2ndAmnd and the RKBA
"Handgun Control Inc., the lobbying group that helped push through
the federal ban on semi-automatic weapons and the Brady law on gun
purchases, is said to be worried that it is losing the public
relations war to the National Rifle Association. . . . It is also
considering a name change because, among other reasons, polls and
focus groups show that many Americans are uncomfortable with the
word *control*." --US News and World Report, August 19, 1996
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
--George Santayana, Spanish-American Philosopher
"The farther back you can look, the farther forward you are likely
to see." --Sir Winston Churchill
"Throughout recorded history, without exception, it has been
the sole accomplishment of organized government to deprive
their populations of their Liberty and of their Property."
--John C. Calhoun
"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 ruined."
-- Patrick Henry
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase
a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor
Safety." --Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), reply of
the Pennsylvania Assembly to the governor, November 11, 1755
<<later; motto of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania,
c. 1759>>
"The Constitution is not an instrument for government to
restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people
to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate
our lives and interests."
--Patrick Henry
"The right of self-defense is the first law of nature;
in most governments it has been the study of rulers to
confine this right within the narrowest limits possible.
Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right
of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color
or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already
annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
-- Henry St. George Tucker, in Blackstone's
1768 "Commentaries on the Laws of England."
"Those in possession of absolute power can not only prophesy
and make their prophecies come true, but they can also lie
and make their lies come true.
-- Eric Hoffer (1902-83), U.S. philosopher.
The Passionate State of Mind, aph. 78 (1955)
"The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment
by men of zeal, well-meaning; but without understanding."
--Justice Louis D. Brandeis, U.S. Supreme Court
"It would...be strange to find in the midst of a catalog of the
rights of individuals a provision securing to the states the
right to maintain a designated 'Militia' -- and to find that
purely institutional guarantee accorded a position of great
prominence immediately following freedom of religion and freedom
of speech." (Italics in original)
--Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia
on the Second Amendment:
(A Matter of Interpretation: Federal
Courts and the Law, Princeton
University Press, 1997, 159 pages.)
"The right of the citizen to keep and bear arms has justly
been considered, as the palladium [guarantee] of the liberties
of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the
usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally,
even if these are successful in the first instance, enable
the people to resist and triumph over them."
--U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story,
3 Commentaries on the Constitution
of the United States, 1890, p. 746-747
"One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their
purpose without resistance is, by disarming the people, and
making it an offense to keep arms . . . ."
--Joseph Story, A Familiar Exposition of the
Constitution of the United States 264 (1893)
"The right to bear arms is essential to freedom. For it is the
policy of governments to disarm the people, that they may have
the opportunity to oppress them."
--Robert Emmett Bledsoe Baylor, 1845
"...No clause in the Constitution could by any rule
of construction be conceived to give the Congress a
power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt
could only be made, under some general pretence, by a
state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of in-
ordinate power either should attempt it, [the second]
amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both."
--William Rawle,
"View of the Constitution," 1825
"It is not the function of government to keep the citizen from
falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep
the government from falling into error."
--Justice Robert H. Jackson
U.S. Supreme Court, 339 U.S. 382, 447
--
John_Johnson
TXJo...@ix.netcom.com
© 1998 All rights reserved
Sam A. Kersh
>The NRA and other gun lobby followers are fond of reciting "ignore the
>federal courts and listen to our interpretation of the Second Amendment".
>Explain for us your concept of individual sovereignty and who is the master
>who oversees how it it used.
What I don't intend to ignore is your phony claim to be a retired
officer of the U.S. Army. There are no James Albert Isham on the
rolls... You made this false claim a year ago in a feeble attempt to
gain some credibility. And like so many of your claims, you refuse to
provide data to back it.
Sam A. Kersh
>That "armed citizenry" is responsible for our high murder rate. What do you
>think about an elite that doesn't give a damn about our murder rate so long
>as they can have all the guns they want?
You consider criminals to be full citiznes, James Albert?
From DoJ pamphlet NCJ-143498, 'Murder in Families' July, 1994
"Seventy-four percent of murder defendants had a prior criminal
record of arrest or conviction of a crime. A substantial
percentage of murder victims, 44%, also had a prior criminal
record. "
and
Table 8, page 10, Felony defendants in Large Urban Counties, 1992
NCJ-148826
Percent
---------With Prior Arrests---------------
Total 1 2-4 5-9 10 or More
Violent Offenses 63% 10% 18% 15% 21%
Murder 62 17 15 16 13
Rape 53 11 16 14 12
Robbery 70 8 18 17 26
Assault 60 10 18 13 19
Other 60 13 18 14 15
John Simutis
In talk.politics.guns Albert Isham <ais...@ne.infi.net> wrote:
:>
: I merely say that them people have the right to regulate privately owned
: guns. It is you who want to deny the people that right.
What? Was there a new amendment passed? A Constitutional Convention? I
would have expected to read about it in the paper, Albert.
Just as it took a Constitutional amendment to allow the government to take
on alcohol, it will take another one to do guns.
In the meanwhile, the people self-regulate - don't want one? Don't buy
one.
--
John Simutis sim...@ccnet.com
122 degrees West Longitude, 38 degrees North Latitude
-- unless the North American Plate slips bigtime ...
James F. Mayer
writes:
right to
>regulate privately owned guns.
>
specific cases in every court and in every district and a Supreme Court
ruling that says such?
"The right to regulate" is nothing more than a gun control lobby smoke
screen for their real agenda. They want to prohibit the American
people from making any laws unless HCI or an other gun control lobby
organization gives their approval. They want only the politicians to
pass laws that promote their agenda. When such laws are put up for a
vote before the people, the general citizenry, they are resoundingly
defeated like in Washington State.
Initiative 676 Gun Control
7,419 of 7,420 precincts - 99 percent
Yes, 409,515 - 29.6 percent
No, 973,974 - 70.4 percent
"We didn't spend enough money, and we didn't tell enough lies."
[WRT the reasons Washington Safety First and Handgun Control
Incorporated lost the WA State I-676 handgun control inititive]
--Charles W. `The Needle' Pluckhahn; aka: "CWP" <nee...@seanet.com>
James F. Mayer
writes:
>
>In article <6qk8h5$i...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>, James F. Mayer
says...
>>
>
>>>Scot, how do you really feel about the Second Amendment? Should
>>privately
>>>
>>>
>>
>>constitution
>>Subject: Re: NRA Arms Criminals
>>Date: 30 Apr 1997 16:16:20 GMT
>>
>>“...We need to confiscate guns from the lawless and the disloyal and
we
>>want any confiscating to be conducted as authorized by law and not
>>conducted by "armed citizen guerrillas" who may be the real tyrants."
>>
>So, James, I take it that you do not want to disarm the lawless or the
>disloyal.
From: ais...@ne.infi.net (Albert Isham)
Subject: Re: NRA Arms Criminals
Date: 30 Apr 1997 16:16:20 GMT
“...We need to confiscate guns from the lawless and the disloyal and we
want any confiscating to be conducted as authorized by law and not
conducted by "armed citizen guerrillas" who may be the real tyrants."
Are these the “lawless and the disloyal” of which you speak?
http://www.us.net/phoenix/
Gun Control in Germany, 1928-1945
by Dr. William L. Pierce
* Jews, it should be noted, were not Germans, even if they had been
born in Germany. The National Socialists defined citizenship in ethnic
terms, and under Hitler Jews were not accorded full rights of
citizenship. National Socialist legislation progressively excluded
Jews from key professions: teaching, the media, the practice of law,
etc. The aim was not only to free German life from an oppressive and
degenerative Jewish influence, but to persuade Jews to emigrate.
>This is an admission that you want to arm criminals (the lawless).
>
No, it isn't. It is proof that you want to turn this country into
a police state.
>When will you give us your source for denying that 70 percent of
murders are
>committed with guns?
>
I already have.
When will you post your proof of your supposed army duty?
James F. Mayer
writes:
>
>In article <6qk8qf$i...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>, James F. Mayer
says...
>>
>>. You and your fellow elitists are working as hard as you can
>>to
>>>>undermine the protection afforded by the 2nd Amendment.
>>>>
>>
>>
>privately owned guns.
"The right to regulate" is nothing more than a gun control lobby smoke
screen for their real agenda. They want to prohibit the American
people from making any laws unless HCI or an other gun control lobby
organization gives their approval. They want only the politicians to
pass laws that promote their agenda. When such laws are put up for a
vote before the people, the general citizenry, they are resoundingly
defeated like in Washington State.
Initiative 676 Gun Control
7,419 of 7,420 precincts - 99 percent
Yes, 409,515 - 29.6 percent
No, 973,974 - 70.4 percent
>That is not a police state.
Yes it is
You and the NRA want to
>tie the hands of the people by telling them that gun laws you don't
approve
>of are unconstitutional.
It doesn't matter to me, they are unconstitutional.
This is a police state with the gun lobby calling
>the shots.
>
No, you want to disarm the general citizenry so that your police
state can be more easily implemented. You want the gun control lobby
to call the shots.
James F. Mayer
writes:
>
>In article <6qk8js$c...@sjx-ixn11.ix.netcom.com>, James F. Mayer
says...
>>
>
>
>>>>
>>>>Let's look at this rejection you have of the idea of individual
>>rights,
>>>>shall we?
>>>>
>>>>Which of the other rights recognized by the Bill of Rights are
>>subject
>>>>to this 'right of control' that you believe in? Can Congress limit,
>>by
>>>>statute, the rights of free speech, freedom of the press, the 4th
>>>>Amendment rights to security from government searches, the 5th
>>Amendment
>>>>rights to grand jury indictment, the bar against double jeopardy,
or
>>>>self incrimination?
>>>
ours
>>my
>>>freedom stops where it intrudes on yours.
>>
>>
screen for their real agenda. They want to prohibit the American
people from making any laws unless HCI or an other gun control lobby
organization gives their approval. They want only the politicians to
pass laws that promote their agenda. When such laws are put up for a
vote before the people, the general citizenry, they are resoundingly
defeated like in Washington
State.
Initiative 676 Gun Control
7,419 of 7,420 precincts - 99 percent
Yes, 409,515 - 29.6 percent
No, 973,974 - 70.4 percent
>
>>>>
>>>Is your gun a sacred cow? Should privately owned guns be immune to
>>public
>>>authority?
>>>
>>
>>"The right to regulate" is nothing more than a gun control lobby
smoke
>>screen for their real agenda.
>
>What matters is the will of the people and polls show that the
majority want
>stricter gun control.
>
No, they do not.
Why didn't they pass this one?
Initiative 676 Gun Control
7,419 of 7,420 precincts - 99 percent
Yes, 409,515 - 29.6 percent
No, 973,974 - 70.4 percent
>
>> They want to prohibit the American
>>people from making any laws unless HCI or an other gun control lobby
>>organization gives their approval.
>
>It is the NRA that tells the people they can't regulate guns because
of
>constitutional reasons. However, tha NRA does push through gun laws
like CCW
>so what they really want is the power to dictate to us what gun laws
we may
>have.
>
No, that is what you want. You want to push through gun laws that
totally disarm the general citizenry that they really dont want. Why
do you think so many congress people lost their jobs in 1996?
>
>> They want only the politicians to
>>pass laws that promote their agenda.
>
>That sounds like the NRA.
>
You're the one that pushes the fact that the representatives pass
laws. Many do against the will of the people.
>> When such laws are put up for a
>>vote before the people, the general citizenry, they are resoundingly
>>defeated like in Washington State.
>>
>> Initiative 676 Gun Control
>> 7,419 of 7,420 precincts - 99 percent
>> Yes, 409,515 - 29.6 percent
>> No, 973,974 - 70.4 percent
>>
>It should be noted that the NRA spent about 5 million dollars to
defeat this
>measure and some of their campaigning was not entirely truthful.
>
"We didn't spend enough money, and we didn't tell enough lies."
Mark A. Fuller
>RR: What's really funny about this is that Mark has not
>indicated that two of the three judges on the Gomez panel
>offered concurring opinions that disagreed with the use of
>'footnote 7' (see Mark's entire post below).
<chuckle>. Let's see here. We have the widely advertised Hickman
case where the three-judge panel completely re-writes Miller and says
the 2nd protects the right of the state in response to non-felon
complaining the state prohibits them from taking any prepatory steps
for a time they would be justified in using lethal force. Then in
Gomez, a three judge panel (consisting of two of the judges from
Hickman) writes regarding a felon-in-possession:
Gomez argues he should have been allowed to present the death
threat evidence in order to make out either a duress or
necessity defense. In this and other circuits, however, cases
such as Gomez's have almost always been analyzed in terms of
justification. ...
We therefore review Gomez's evidence to determine whether it
is sufficient to make out a case of justification.
[footnote 6]
In fact, in Paolello, the Third Circuit reversed the
conviction because the district court had refused to instruct
the jury on the justification defense. 951 F.2d at 542-44.
[footnote 7]
Gomez was entitled to tell the jury his side of the story. His
evidence, if believed, sufficed to make out a justification
defense. It should have been admitted.
VACATED and REMANDED.
Then we have the short statements by two of the Hickman judges which
indicate the predicament they have found themselves in:
HAWKINS, Circuit Judge, concurring:
I concur in all of Judge Kozinski's excellent opinion save for
footnote 7, which alludes to an interesting and difficult
question I would leave for another day.
HALL, Circuit Judge, concurring:
I concur in Judge Kozinski's opinion, with the exception of
footnote 7, which I do not join because it directly conflicts
with our holding in Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3d 98, 101 (9th
Cir. 1996) (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").
The obvious "difficult question" Hawkins mentions is just how a felon
in possession could be "justified" when nobody but a state has a right
to arms. By not offering their own dissenting opinion, they easily
skirt the question of exactly where such a right to justification
derives. If there were times that a felon, let alone the vast
majority of citizens, could justifiably need/possess/use weapons
without being a member of the National Guard, just how would they
expect to obtain them? Suddenly we've gone from a flat statement that
only states have a right to arms, to a statement that everyone
including *felons* has a right to arms if they are justified.
In short, they took the cheap route. They were faced with a real life
example of someone largely excluded from the rights of citizenship,
completely shut out from any protection, a failure in the social
contract, and forced to operate outside the legal boundaries. They
agreed that this can be a justification, they agreed with Kozinski's
opinion, rejected Kozinki's depiction of where this justification
derives, and refused to offer their own depiction since it would
likely be impossible to derive it from anywhere and at the same time
hold only states have a right to arms. Given their coherency in
Hickman (their complete butchery of Miller) I think I can understand
why.
This directly leads back to Hickman and whether a person has a right
to take proactive steps in preperation for a time they might be
justified in using lethal force. Kozinski's footnote 7 is a
reasonable attempt at addressing this. The Hickman judges didn't
address it in Hickman, and they didn't address it in Gomez.
Mark
Mark A. Fuller
>What matters is the will of the people and polls show that the majority want
>stricter gun control.
And there are polls showing a majority believe they have a right to
own an firearms as an effective means of self-defense. Unfortunately,
those who seek to eliminate the 2nd amendment as a barrier to laws
prohibiting private access to firearms only mention polls regarding
stricter control as if it supports their own position that there is no
right.
The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain
subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to
place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to
establish them as legal principles to be applied by the
courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free
speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and
other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they
depend on the outcome of no elections.
--- West Virginia State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S.
624, 638 (1943).
Would you agree with that Albert?
>It is the NRA
I'm not a member of the NRA.
Mark A. Fuller
>So, James, I take it that you do not want to disarm the lawless or the
>disloyal. This is an admission that you want to arm criminals (the lawless).
The "disloyal"? If history's any guide, I think we know what this
means. Many commentators have argued that proposals for American gun
control or prohibition raise similar concerns, threatening to create a
privileged caste of individuals who enjoy enhanced, armed
security that is denied to the general population. Under the view that
only government should have guns, entry into this caste would depend
upon one's status as an agent of government or an individual
with sufficient political influence to extract special concessions.
Don Kates emphasizes the problems with such a structure[1].
Even under New York City's extremely stringent administration,
some citizens are able to obtain permits not only to own but
even to carry handguns for protection. Several years ago the
local affiliate of the National Rifle Association obtained ...
a list of those holding such "carry permits." According to
official policy, a "carry permit" should have been granted
only upon the applicant's showing a "unique need" for
self-defense. Yet the list was predominantly made up of
individuals noted less for the perilousness of their life
styles, than for wealth, social prominence, and political
influence. Highly, and ironically, visible on the list were a
number of well-known "gun control" advocates.
The true significance of such revelations is their adverse
effect on voluntary compliance with [gun laws] ....
... When people whose lives are spent in mansions, high
security buildings, and chauffeured limousines are accorded
gun permits which ordinary citizens condemned to live and/or
work in high crime areas are denied, those citizens are likely
to assume that government places a higher value on the lives
of the wealthy or influential than on theirs. Needless to say,
ordinary citizens are unlikely either to concur in that
valuation or to feel many qualms about violating a law which
they deem expressive of it.
The list of New York City licensees referred to was from the 1970s.
Among those listed as having concealed carry licenses were such
opponents of gun ownership as Nelson Rockefeller, former New York
Congressman and Mayor John Lindsey, the publisher of the <i>New York
Times</i> and the psychiatrist husband of Dr. Joyce Brothers (a
psychologist whose often-repeated public claim is that gun ownership
is evidence of male sexual dysfunction). He and Nelson Rockefeller are
deceased as are a number of other nationally known concealed carry
licensees, e.g. Eleanor Roosevelt, Lyman Bloomingdale, Henry Cabot
Lodge, Arthur Godfrey, Sammy Davis, Jr., Robert Goulet, Sid Caesar,
and a plethora of Rockefellers. The current New York City concealed
carry license list continues to include the <i>New York Times's</i>
Arthur Ochs Sulzberger as well as (referring only to those nationally
known): Donald Trump, Lawrence Rockefeller, Leland du Pont, Joan
Rivers, Howard Stern, Michael Korda, William F. Buckley, and Bill
Cosby.
See also Elite in NYC Are Packing Heat, Boston Globe, Jan. 8, 1993, at
3; Don B. Kates, Jr., The Battle Over Gun Control, 84 Pub. Interest L.
Rev. 42, 45 (1986)
[1] Handgun Banning in Light of the Prohibition Experience, in
Firearms and Violence 139, 154 (1984)
Sam A. Kersh
>In article <35CD4E...@mail.idt.net>, Scot says...
>>
>>
>>Albert,
>>
>>Doesn't it bother you one teensy bit that 1) Miller wasn't convicted, so
>>that they couldn't have upheld a conviction, and 2) the government was
>>the appellant?
>>
>Does it bother you that Miller was defended on the basis of the NRA's
>interpretation of the Second Amendment and the law under which he was charged
>was not overturned?
>
James Albert, just what was the NRA's involvement in U.S. v Miller,
1939? Can you say "None?"
>Scot, how do you really feel about the Second Amendment? Should privately
>owned guns be immune to the control of public authority?
We know how Albot feels about the Second amendment...
From: ais...@ne.infi.net (Albert Isham)
Subject: Re: NRA Arms Criminals
Date: 30 Apr 1997 16:16:20 GMT
...We need to confiscate guns from the lawless and the disloyal and we
want any confiscating to be conducted as authorized by law and not
conducted by "armed citizen guerrillas" who may be the real tyrants."
Mark A. Fuller
>In article <35d9c2f9....@news.primenet.com>, Mark A. Fuller says...
>>
>>
>>>AI. What do you
>>>think about an elite that doesn't give a damn about our murder rate so long
>>>as they can have all the guns they want?
>>
>>MF. What do you think about an elite that employs bigotry to stigmatize
>>all gun owners based upon the acts of an aberant few in order to
>>pursue what more appropriately appears to be a culture war?
>>
>AI. What do you think about an elite that would go to such lengths to protect
>the aberant few who commit gun violence?
I don't know any such elite. I always hear people pointing out that
it's primarily those with lengthy criminal histories, repeat
offenders, already prohibited from the term "gun owner" who need to be
dealt with.
>AI. The Constitution provides the limits in which the people can make laws.
Yep.
>The courts have ruled repeatedly that the people have this right.
There's room for analysis on that claim. A large number of those
rulings deal with felons coupled a gratuitous use of the ambiguous
Miller. However, following the logic to it's natural end creates some
problems. For instance Hickman and Gomez where, on the one hand,
states are justified in possessing weapons, and on the other hand
individuals can be: with no clear statement of principle of why
individuals are, how they should obtain them when needed (precisely
the point when state's aren't providing services), why they can't have
them in anticipation of need, or the ideological basis for lodging the
right with the state (other than to twist Miller beyond recognition).
Likewise, we've seen some contradictory statements come from the
Supreme Court. They hear Miller without defense and they don't say
all the right words despite the government giving them all the right
words. Fifty years later the SC hears Perpich and Verdugo-Urquidez.
Perpich deals entirely with states and their control of militias. Not
a single word about the 2nd amendment. In the very same year, in
Verdugo-Urquidez, they list the right to arms among other individual
rights with no mention of militia membership.
Similarly, in 1992 the court decided Casey regarding abortion rights.
Referring to the 14th amendment, the Court quoted Justice Harlan's
dissent in 1961 Poe v. Ullman:
The most familiar of the substantive liberties protected by
the Fourteenth Amendment are those recognized by the Bill of
Rights. We have held that the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment incorporates most of the Bill of Rights
against the States. It is tempting, as a means of curbing the
discretion of federal judges, to suppose that liberty
encompasses no more than those rights already guaranteed to
the individual against federal interference by the express
provisions of <em>the first eight Amendments to the
Constitution</em>.
....
Neither the Bill of Rights nor the specific practices of
States at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment
marks the outer limits of the substantive sphere of liberty
which the Fourteenth Amendment protects. As the second Justice
Harlan recognized:
[T]he full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due
Process Clause cannot be found in or limited by the
precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere
provided in the Constitution. This 'liberty' is not a
series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the
taking of property; the freedom of speech, press,
and religion; <em>the right to keep and bear
arms</em>; the freedom from unreasonable searches and
seizures; and so on.
David Kopel[1] argues that it is "impossible" to read Harlan's words
as anything other than a recognition that the Second Amendment
protects the right of individual Americans to possess firearms.
"Obviously, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
protects a right of individuals <em>against</em> governments; it does
not protect government, nor is it some kind of collective right." The
most recent book-length history of the Fourteenth Amendment[2] reaches
the same conclusion: "[a]mong the rights that Republicans in the
Thirty-ninth Congress relied on as absolute rights of the citizens of
the United States were the right[s] to freedom of speech ... due
process ... and the right to bear arms."
[1] http://www.2ndlawlib.org/journals/commun.html#pg540
Kopel and Little point out another case in which the Court suggests
that decisions relating to family autonomy rest on a liberty
foundation that explicitly includes the right to bear arms. (id at
#pg540) In <cite><i>Moore v. City of East Cleveland</i>, 431 U.S. 494
(1976)</cite>, the Court employed Harlan's dissent--including the
reference to a right to keep and bear arms--in striking down a zoning
regulation that restricted cohabitation by extended families in single
family homes.
[2] Michael Kent Curtis, No State Shall Abridge (1986)
Christopher Morton
>In article <6qk8qf$i...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>, James F. Mayer says...
>>
>>. You and your fellow elitists are working as hard as you can
>>to
>>>>undermine the protection afforded by the 2nd Amendment.
>>>>
>>>AI. I am working hard to lower our murder rate.
>>
>>JFM. No, you are working hard to get a police state implemented.
>>
>AI. James, I am working to allow the people their right to regulate
>privately owned guns. That is not a police state. You and the NRA want to
>tie the hands of the people by telling them that gun laws you don't approve
>of are unconstitutional. This is a police state with the gun lobby calling
>the shots.
That's funny, the KKK and the Nazis say the same thing about the NAACP
and voting rights and anti-discrimination laws. They claim that the
NAACP is tying the hands of those who want to racially discriminate.
Once again, we see JUST how close the gun controllers and the White
power rangers are.
Christopher Morton
>In article <35d9c2f9....@news.primenet.com>, Mark A. Fuller says...
>>
>>
>>>AI. What do you
>>>think about an elite that doesn't give a damn about our murder rate so long
>>>as they can have all the guns they want?
>>
>>MF. What do you think about an elite that employs bigotry to stigmatize
>>all gun owners based upon the acts of an aberant few in order to
>>pursue what more appropriately appears to be a culture war?
>>
>AI. What do you think about an elite that would go to such lengths to protect
>the aberant few who commit gun violence?
When did this change to a discussion of the police?
Christopher Morton
>In article <6qk8h5$i...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>, James F. Mayer says...
>>
>
>>>Scot, how do you really feel about the Second Amendment? Should
>>privately
>>>owned guns be immune to the control of public authority?
>>>
>>>
>> This is the "public authority" that Albert wants to control guns:
>>
>>constitution
>>From: ais...@ne.infi.net (Albert Isham)
>>Subject: Re: NRA Arms Criminals
>>Date: 30 Apr 1997 16:16:20 GMT
>>
>>“...We need to confiscate guns from the lawless and the disloyal and we
>>want any confiscating to be conducted as authorized by law and not
>>conducted by "armed citizen guerrillas" who may be the real tyrants."
>>
>So, James, I take it that you do not want to disarm the lawless or the
>disloyal. This is an admission that you want to arm criminals (the lawless).
Who are the "disloyal"?
Those who belong to a different political party than you do?
Those who vote differently than you do?
Those of different races, religions or ethnicities?
Keep at it, you're proving my point about Nazis and gun controllers.
Sam A. Kersh
>And the federal courts have ruled unanimously that the people have the right to
>regulate privately owned guns.
>
And all of mine are perfectly regulated... Everyone of them shoots to
point of aim...
Sam A. Kersh
>AI. What do you think about an elite that would go to such lengths to protect
>the aberant few who commit gun violence?
James Albert, you go first on your own question... please go into
detail why you support "official gun violence" when it is directed at
"religious kooks" or for PR just before Congressional budget
meetings... You do remember Waco and Ruby Ridge, don't you?
Lee E. Brown
tudor wrote in message <6qhivp$41i$1...@lwnws01.ne.highway1.com>...
>Theodore A. Kaldis wrote in message <35CC3710...@home.com>...
>
>>That _WAS_ the intent of the section (the 2nd amendment to the U.S.
>>Constitution, which was adopted with 10 amendments in place). There
>>are some revisionists who might try to tell you otherwise, but no
>>honest serious scholar on the subject will make that assertion. The
>>framers' other writings on the issue makes it clear that the intent of
>>the 2nd amendment is to protect the rights of private citizens to
>>possess and carry guns.
>
>First off, the U.S. Constitution was not adopted with 10 amendments in
>place. The constitution was adopted in 1787 and the first ten amendments,
>known collectively as the Bill of Rights, were adopted in 1791.
A perfectly correct, yet totally moot point.
>Secondly, if the second amendment was so "clear" as to the supposed "right"
>of individuals to possess and carry guns, why has the Supreme Court never
>found such a right? And why has the chief lobby for the extremist
>interpretation, the National Rifle Association, not challenged the many
>Draconian ant-gun restrictions on the books in localities around the
>country? Could it be that Chucky Heston knows he'd lose?
Perhaps you'd care to refresh your impressive legal memory with the concept
of "standing."
>
>>> - but why not just change the law?
>>
>>It is neither popular nor politically feasible to do so. It takes a
>>fair amount of political subterfuge to get much less sweeping gun
>>control laws passed. To get a constitutional amendment passed, you
>>need 2/3 of the House and Senate, plus 3/4 of all state legislatures
>>must concur. That's not about to happen.
>
>
>It could also be that there's no need to change the second amendment, since
>it deals only with the provisions for equipping state militias and defines
>the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms in a collective sense only.
It's amazing how no legal scholar sees Article II BOR this way, yet the
"gunz-r-bad" crowd keeps repeating it like it was gospel.
>>Most of the gun crime in the U.S. where someone is seriously injured or
>>killed occurs in a relatively small number of high-crime areas (or else
>>nearby, committed by someone from there). When these instances are
>>discounted, gun-crime stats are probably about the same as France (if
>>not less).
>
>
>One thing France does not have is the regular gun-related masacres of
>innocent civilians by psychotics wielding guns. I don't know what
provisions
>France has for pre-approval, registration and training of gun owners.
>Perhaps someone who knows could tell us. But they must have something
better
>than we do. In the United States, every time there's a mass murder with
>guns, the gun lobby uses the occasion to call for further relaxation of our
>already loose rules on guns.
Interesting. You do realize that you imply France has some sort of secret
clairvoyance that helps them identify Psychos before the fct, don't you?
What exactly are you smoking, Tudor?
>>Where gun ownership is a crime, only criminals have guns.
>
>
>The usual tautological NRA sloganeering. Where gun ownership is a crime,
>there's a lot less crime and murder.
Like in Jamaica, or Mexico? You're so funny.....
Lee E. Brown
Albert Isham wrote in message <6qii33$jnk$2...@nw001t.infi.net>...
>In article <35d1b31d...@news.primenet.com>, Mark A. Fuller says...
>>
>>
>>
>>Albert's fond of reciting that "no federal court has upheld the
>>individual right interpretation". This is a rather simplistic mantra
>>(IMO) since not only is it false, but it could equally be asserted
>>that "no federal court has upheld the explicit congressional intent
>>for an individual right." Conversely it could be said, "no
>>congressional act upholds the states' right interpretation of federal
>>courts."
>>
>>
>The NRA and other gun lobby followers are fond of reciting "ignore the
>federal courts and listen to our interpretation of the Second Amendment".
>Explain for us your concept of individual sovereignty and who is the master
>who oversees how it it used.
I don't suppose you've noticed that you've constructed an oxymoron, have
you? No, I thought not.
Albert The Professional Liar has a habit of not reading - let alone thinking
about - the grbage that he posts.
Lee E. Brown
Albert Isham wrote in message <6qjuu1$odn$2...@nw001t.infi.net>...
>In article <35CD50...@mail.idt.net>, Scot says...
>>
>>Albert Isham wrote:
>>
>
>>
>>> The NRA and other gun lobby followers are fond of reciting "ignore the
>>> federal courts and listen to our interpretation of the Second
Amendment".
>>> Explain for us your concept of individual sovereignty and who is the
>master
>>> who oversees how it it used.
>>
>>
>>Let's look at this rejection you have of the idea of individual rights,
>>shall we?
>>
>>Which of the other rights recognized by the Bill of Rights are subject
>>to this 'right of control' that you believe in? Can Congress limit, by
>>statute, the rights of free speech, freedom of the press, the 4th
>>Amendment rights to security from government searches, the 5th Amendment
>>rights to grand jury indictment, the bar against double jeopardy, or
>>self incrimination?
>
>There are limits on all of these freedoms. In a society such as ours my
>freedom stops where it intrudes on yours.
>
>>
>>these individual rights don't exist?
>>
>>
>Is your gun a sacred cow? Should privately owned guns be immune to public
>authority?
Aren't you the same Albert who just said "In a society such as ours my
freedom stops where it intrudes on yours?" Therefore, why are you indeed
trying to intrude on other people's freedoms? If they aren't harming anyone
with their firearms, it's NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.
What gives you this special right to intrude into other people's businees,
Albert?
David Gossman
>
> I'm still waiting for your grammatical analysis and sentence diagram of
> the Second Amendment.
>
Since Albert did not respond...
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, U.S. Constitution.
Does the Second Amendment guarantee the right to keep and
bear arms to the militia or to the people?
Grammatically, the word "right" is undisputedly the subject
of the sentence. The predicate (or main verb phrase) is "shall
not be infringed." It is a straightforward command. The
reference to the word "Militia" appears only as an introductory
subordinate clause, which has no power to limit or restrict the
subject or the predicate.
Well, as our first chief Justice, John Marshal, once noted,
the men who wrote the Constitution were intelligent men, pretty
handy with the English language, and we have to assume they said
what they meant to say.
If they had intended to say that only members of the militia
have a right to keep and bear arms, they would have said so.
They simply offered one reason (but not the only reason), and
commanded that the right of the people shall not be
infringed....all the people.
(copied from prior post)
--
--------------------------------------------
|David Gossman | Gossman Consulting, Inc. |
|President | http://gcisolutions.com |
| The Business of Problem Solving |
--------------------------------------------
"If it can't be expressed in figures, it is not science;
it is opinion." - Lazarus Long aka Robert Heinlein
Blaine Fields
> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote in message <35CC3710...@home.com>...
>
> >That _WAS_ the intent of the section (the 2nd amendment to the U.S.
> >Constitution, which was adopted with 10 amendments in place). There
> >are some revisionists who might try to tell you otherwise, but no
> >honest serious scholar on the subject will make that assertion. The
> >framers' other writings on the issue makes it clear that the intent of
> >the 2nd amendment is to protect the rights of private citizens to
> >possess and carry guns.
>
> First off, the U.S. Constitution was not adopted with 10 amendments in
> place. The constitution was adopted in 1787 and the first ten amendments,
> known collectively as the Bill of Rights, were adopted in 1791.
>
> Secondly, if the second amendment was so "clear" as to the supposed "right"
> of individuals to possess and carry guns, why has the Supreme Court never
> found such a right? And why has the chief lobby for the extremist
> interpretation, the National Rifle Association, not challenged the many
> Draconian ant-gun restrictions on the books in localities around the
> country? Could it be that Chucky Heston knows he'd lose?
The Supreme Court has. You might want to read United States vs. Miller, 307
U.S. 174. You should read the actual opinion instead of an HCI abstract. As
for you question about "the Draconian ant-gun (sic) restrictions", that would
take an explanation of State vs. Federal jurisdiction which is probably beyond
you right now. Read the Miller case as a start.
>
>
> >> - but why not just change the law?
> >
> >It is neither popular nor politically feasible to do so. It takes a
> >fair amount of political subterfuge to get much less sweeping gun
> >control laws passed. To get a constitutional amendment passed, you
> >need 2/3 of the House and Senate, plus 3/4 of all state legislatures
> >must concur. That's not about to happen.
>
> It could also be that there's no need to change the second amendment, since
> it deals only with the provisions for equipping state militias and defines
> the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms in a collective sense only.
Not so. Read the Miller decision - especially the part that says: "And further,
that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear
bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."
See page 179.
> >Most of the gun crime in the U.S. where someone is seriously injured or
> >killed occurs in a relatively small number of high-crime areas (or else
> >nearby, committed by someone from there). When these instances are
> >discounted, gun-crime stats are probably about the same as France (if
> >not less).
>
> One thing France does not have is the regular gun-related masacres of
> innocent civilians by psychotics wielding guns. I don't know what provisions
> France has for pre-approval, registration and training of gun owners.
> Perhaps someone who knows could tell us. But they must have something better
> than we do. In the United States, every time there's a mass murder with
> guns, the gun lobby uses the occasion to call for further relaxation of our
> already loose rules on guns.
>
> >Where gun ownership is a crime, only criminals have guns.
>
> The usual tautological NRA sloganeering. Where gun ownership is a crime,
> there's a lot less crime and murder.
Then why is England experiencing the fastest increase in the rate of violent
crime in the world right now?
--
Regards,
Blaine L. Fields
[To reply, delete the lower case x's from the address]
"Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But
notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism
seeks equality in restraint and servitude."
--Alexis de Tocqueville
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may
be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons
than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty
may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but
those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for
they do so with the approval of their consciences."
-- C.S Lewis
RAY
> That armed citizenry consists of 70 million individuals in possession
> of 220+ million guns. An FBI data run of murder arrestees nationally
> over a four year period in the 1960s found 74.7% to have had prior
> arrests for violent felony or burglary. In one study, the Bureau of
> Criminal Statistics found that 76.7% of murder arrestees had criminal
> histories as did 78% of defendants in murder prosecutions nationally.
> In another FBI data run of murder arrestees over a one year period,
> 77.9% had prior criminal records. Federal Bureau of Investigation,
> Uniform Crime Rep. 38 (1971).
> The annual Chicago Police Department bulletin Murder Analysis
> shows the following figures for the percentage of murderers who had
> prior crime records:
> 1991: 77.15%
> 1990: 74.63%
> 1989: 74.22%
> 1988: 73.59%
> 1987: 73.81%
> Five year average for 1987-1991: 74.68%
> When the vast majority of murderers have life histories of
> violence, felony records, and substance abuse. (Bureau of Justice
> Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Justice, Murder in Families 5 tbl. 7 (1994)
> [hereinafter Murder in Families]; Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S.
> Dep't of Justice, Murder in Large Urban Counties, 1988 (1993).) and
> that murderers average a prior adult criminal career of six years,
> including four major adult felony arrests (Federal Bureau of
> Investigation, Uniform Crime Rep. 43 (1975).), or that that when the
> murder occurred "[a]bout 11% of murder arrestees [were] actually on
> pre-trial release"--that is, they were awaiting trial for another
> offense--(John Dilulio, The Question of Black Crime, 117 Pub. Interest
> 3, 16 (1994).) it seems pedantic to portray all armed citizens as
> equal contributors to the violence problem when it actually looks like
> a small, highly identifiable, aberant portion responsible for the vast
> bulk. In fact, removing their contribution would make our violence
> rates look much like "civilized europe".
RR: Despite all your statistical dancing, the bottom line
is that a majority of murders are committed by those who
have never been convicted of a felony:
Felony defendants in Large Urban Counties, 1992,
NCJ-148826, Table 9, page 12,
Number of prior convictions of felony defendants....
Without Prior With Prior number of
prior conviction
convictions convictions
1 2-4 5-9 10+
Murder 53 47 16 17 12 2
Rape 56 44 13 21 9 -
Robbery 42 58 12 25 13 8
Assault 50 50 13 20 11 7
Other 56 44 12 18 8 6
Paul Stevens
>
>
> >Where gun ownership is a crime, only criminals have guns.
>
> The usual tautological NRA sloganeering. Where gun ownership is a crime,
> there's a lot less crime and murder.
Obviously stated by someone who has never taken a stroll (at night)
through Washington DC (where gun ownership is definitely a crime).
Wasn't DC labelled as the murder capitol of the US?
P.S.
RAY
> The United States Solicitor General appealed the case to the
> SCOTUS; citing almost the same "claims" you and "Little Dennie"
> Henigan have made: and the SCOTUS *ignored* them; sending the
> case back only for determination that the particular Stevens
> double-barreled shotgun possessed by Jack Miller and/or Frank
> Layton would qualify as a "militia weapon" and thereby fall
> under the *protection* of the 2ndAmnd:
RR: What part of "the challenged judgement must be
reversed" do you not understand?
Scot
> In article <35CD4E...@mail.idt.net>, Scot says...
> >Albert,
> >Doesn't it bother you one teensy bit that 1) Miller wasn't convicted, so
> >that they couldn't have upheld a conviction, and 2) the government was
> >the appellant?
> Does it bother you that Miller was defended on the basis of the NRA's
> interpretation of the Second Amendment and the law under which he was charged
> was not overturned?
Gee, Albert, guess that means that Miller wasn't set free based on the
trial court's decision.
While it is true that the SCOTUS sent the case back to the district
court, AFTER THE DISTRICT COURT *HAD* OVERTURNED THE NFA'34, they only
sent it back for further fact finding. The SCOTUS said the trial court
had erred, but only in that they assumed that a short shotgun had some
military utility.
> Scot, how do you really feel about the Second Amendment? Should privately
> owned guns be immune to the control of public authority?
From a practical or legal standpoint? My personal opinion is that, just
as we must allow filth to be published or shown as 'art', we must allow
every US resident to own firearms.
And from a practical standpoint, no gun control law has ever prevented a
criminal from obtaining a gun, so what's the point?
Why don't you answer a few questions? Oh, I forgot, you don't really
engage in debate or discussion, you don't believe in give and take. You
want only your point of view to be to be presented.
Scot
I'm still waiting for your grammatical analysis and sentence diagram of
the Second Amendment.
And for the evidence that will falsify my statement that no gun control
law has ever prevented a criminal from obtaining any firearm, nor has
any gun control law ever reduced a high rate of firearms related violent
crime.
What was your source of commission, Branch, MOS, and Year Group? When
did you serve in 'Nam, in what AO, and with what unit(s)?
Scot
> In article <35CD50...@mail.idt.net>, Scot says...
> >Albert Isham wrote:
> >> The NRA and other gun lobby followers are fond of reciting "ignore the
> >> federal courts and listen to our interpretation of the Second Amendment".
> >> Explain for us your concept of individual sovereignty and who is the
> master
> >> who oversees how it it used.
> >Hey Albert,
> >Let's look at this rejection you have of the idea of individual rights,
> >shall we?
> >
> >Which of the other rights recognized by the Bill of Rights are subject
> >to this 'right of control' that you believe in? Can Congress limit, by
> >statute, the rights of free speech, freedom of the press, the 4th
> >Amendment rights to security from government searches, the 5th Amendment
> >rights to grand jury indictment, the bar against double jeopardy, or
> >self incrimination?
> There are limits on all of these freedoms. In a society such as ours my
> freedom stops where it intrudes on yours.
So you believe that, just as you advocate prior restraint with respeto
firearms, it is acceptable for the government to censor the press prior
to publication. Or for the government to require that a person give
testimony against himself, and that searches shouldn't be limited to
warrents?
You are quite right, you have no freedom to interfer with my property.
Just as my right to *use* my property stops when that *use* causes you
harm. Merely posessing something is not harmful to you, and thus
shouldn't be banned.
> >It it within your personal understanding of Constitutional law that
> >these individual rights don't exist?
> Is your gun a sacred cow? Should privately owned guns be immune to public
> authority?
Should speech be subject to public authority? Should government be able
to say that certain religions are against the public order? Should a
magistrate be able to compel a person to testify against themselves?
Should a law enforcement officer be able to come into you home at any
time for any reason?
no one of consequence
Andrew Franz <afr...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
]Charming.
]
]<Xwas...@widomaker.comX>
]
]Wayne A. Stoutenger, M.D. wrote:
]>
]> Should privately owned guns be immune to public
]> > authority?
]>
]> Answer- YES (you moron), read the 2nd Amendment. Like it or not, there
]> it is, "shall not be infringed"
]
]Is your precious constitution cast in stone?
Why no, it can be amended. Alas, those who want to restrict the people's
rights aren't honest enough to go through with making an amendment. They
just get Congress to pass a law and hope everyone obeys it.
--
|Patrick Chester (aka: claypigeon, Sinapus) wol...@io.com |
|"You know I like her. Scares the hell out of me sometimes, but I do like|
|her. Just, uh, don't tell her that." Dr. Franklin about Ivanova. -B5 |
|Wittier remarks always come to mind just after sending your article.... |
Mark A. Fuller
That's interesting Robert. Tell me, how can murders, rapists,
robbers, etc., be roughly 50/50 with and without priors, while those
with priors average average 3-5 priors? How could they be showing up
in the system 3-5 times more often and yet be 50-50 with those with no
priors? is there something I'm missing about these numbers?
James F. Mayer
writes:
>RR: Despite all your statistical dancing, the bottom line
>is that a majority of murders are committed by those who
>have never been convicted of a felony:
>
That doesn't make them any less of a criminal. Most of them have
been convicted of other criminal activity.
>Felony defendants in Large Urban Counties, 1992,
>NCJ-148826, Table 9, page 12,
>Number of prior convictions of felony defendants....
> Without Prior With Prior number of
>prior conviction
>convictions convictions
> 1 2-4 5-9 10+
> Murder 53 47 16 17 12 2
> Rape 56 44 13 21 9 -
> Robbery 42 58 12 25 13 8
> Assault 50 50 13 20 11 7
> Other 56 44 12 18 8 6
Why is it that you have to back to 1992 to get your data? Isn't
there any a little more recent?
Scot
> In article <35CD52...@mail.idt.net>, Scot says...
> >You know, Albert, you've hit on something here, but not what you think
> >you have. When we look at modern American society, with an elite that so
> >fears an armed citizenry,
> That "armed citizenry" is responsible for our high murder rate. What do you
> think about an elite that doesn't give a damn about our murder rate so long
> as they can have all the guns they want?
Albert,
Having a slow Sunday at home?
There is no connection between our murder rate and a lack of gun
control. In no country have gun control laws taken a previously high
homicide rate and reduced it.
1) Even if you were to have a total ban on all firearms, it is a
certainty that those individuals who commit crimes with guns would
negelect to obey the law.
2) Less than 0.5% of our firearms stock is ever used in a crime. Your
laws only impact on the owners of the 99.5% that are never used in
crime.
3) Even absent firearms [an assumption I'm only accepting for this
sentence] those individuals motivated to kill would still be able to
kill. There are many weapons with nearly the lethality of handguns.
> > with organizations such as HCI, you can see
> >that what Justice Story was concerned with '...no small danger that
> >indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt...' has
> >occured. You and your fellow elitists are working as hard as you can to
> >undermine the protection afforded by the 2nd Amendment.
> I am working hard to lower our murder rate.
No, you are not. Nothing you are advocating would have any effect on our
homicide rate.
> Since privately owned guns are
> private property, they have nothing to do with the Second Amendment.
Wrong. And what's really sad is that you know that it is wrong.
> The
> Second Amendment is used by gunners as a stalking horse to enrich their
> private collection of guns.
Pathetic.
Scot
> >. You and your fellow elitists are working as hard as you can
> >to
> >>>undermine the protection afforded by the 2nd Amendment.
> >>AI. I am working hard to lower our murder rate.
By what specific mechanism would any of the things that you advocate
lower our homicide rate?
<snip>
Kym HORSELL
>Did you forget to mention that in Switzerland every civilian is also a
>member of the armed forces?
>That every citizen attends military camps once a year?
>Nah - why complicate a good argument with facts.
Hey, why should Scotty start NOW?
>Scott Hillard wrote:
>> On Sat, 8 Aug 1998 16:42:59 -0700, "tudor" <tu...@mediaone.net> wrote:
><SNIP>
>> >Look at Japan and Europe.
>> Do you mean Switzerland, where every second house has a full-auto
>> rifle in the cupboard?
According to stats that you've seen numerously before -- but
presumably thouroughly repressed -- "every second house" can not be
anywhere near true.
According to <http://www.cybersurf.co.uk/johnny/homemain.html>
Switzerland has "some" kind of firearm in only 27.2% of households,
*including* military firearms. The footnote indicates that excluding
military firearms it's 12.2%. I.e. only 15% of HH have any
kind of military firearm, let alone the (projected? ;-)
"full-auto rifle in the cupboard".
I.e. instead of every second house, Mr Hillard "knows" it's really
every 6th or 7th house.
--
R. Kym Horsell
KHor...@EE.LaTrobe.EDU.AU K...@CS.Binghamton.EDU
http://www.ee.latrobe.edu.au/~khorsell http://cs.binghamton.edu/~kym
Scot
> In article <35d9c2f9....@news.primenet.com>, Mark A. Fuller says...
> >>AI. What do you
> >>think about an elite that doesn't give a damn about our murder rate so long
> >>as they can have all the guns they want?
> >MF. What do you think about an elite that employs bigotry to stigmatize
> >all gun owners based upon the acts of an aberant few in order to
> >pursue what more appropriately appears to be a culture war?
> AI. What do you think about an elite that would go to such lengths to protect
> the aberant few who commit gun violence?
Those who oppose three strikes laws, the death penalty, truth in
sentencing, etc are usually among those who want to control guns. You
don't keep very good company, Albert.
<snip>
> Mark, I asked you to explain the practical application of the individual right
> as it pertains to the Second Amendment. May we expect your response soon?
Albert, we've explained the practical application of the individual
right many times.
Albert, I've asked you repeatedly for your grammatical analysis and
sentence diagram of the Second Amendment.
And for the evidence that will falsify my statement that no gun control
law has ever prevented a criminal from obtaining any firearm, nor has
any gun control law ever reduced a high rate of firearms related violent
crime.
What was your source of commission, Branch, MOS, and Year Group? When
did you serve in 'Nam, in what AO, and with what unit(s)?
Can we expect your response soon?
Scot
John Johnson
`Operation Alienate' Psychopolitician/Propagandist "Tankcar Bobbie"
Q: What part of "The cause will be remanded for further
proceedings" is "Tankcar Bobbie" Ray refusing to acknowledge?
A: *ALL* of it!
Q: What part of "(t)he Court can not take judicial notice*
that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has
today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency
of a well regulated militia; and therefore can not say that the
Second Amendment guarantees to THE CITIZEN citizen the right to
keep and bear such a weapon" says the 2nd Amendment applies
to a "militia" *only*?!? (hint: it doesn't say "the militiaman")
A: *NONE* of it!!!
Q: (relating to this and "the other" Thread) Substituting
"a machine gun" for "a shotgun having a barrel less than 18
inches long": does `Miller" still hold water???
A: *ABSOLUTELY* *NOT*!!!
--John Johnson/TX Peace Officer (15+ Years) supporting the
Texas and U.S. Constitutions, the BoR, the 2ndAmnd and the RKBA
"Liberals have many tails and chase them all."
-- H.L. Mencken
"There is always a well-known solution to every human problem --
neat, plausible, and wrong."
-- H.L. Mencken
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace
alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing
it with an endless series of hobgoblins; all of them imaginary."
-- H.L. Mencken
"It is the invariable habit of bureaucracies, at all times and
everywhere, to assume...that every citizen is a criminal. Their
one apparent purpose, pursued with a relentless and furious
diligence, is to convert the assumption into a fact. They hunt
endlessly for proofs, and, when proofs are lacking, for mere
suspicions. The moment they become aware of a definite citizen,
John Doe, seeking what is his right under the law, they begin
searching feverishly for an excuse for withholding it from him."
-- H.L. Mencken
*From West/Black's Law Dictionary comes the TRUE meaning of
"Judicial Notice":
- - - - -
" 'Judicial notice. The act by which a court, in conducting
a trial, or framing its decision, will, of its own motion,
and without the production of evidence, recognize the
existance and truth of certain facts, having a bearing on
the controversy at bar, which, from their nature, are not
properly the subject of testimony, or which are universally
redarded as established by common noteriety, e.g., the laws
of the state, international law, historical events, the
constitution and course of nature, main geographical features,
etc. The cognizance of certain facts which judges may properly
take and act upon without proof, because they already know them.'
Fed.Evid.Rule 201"
Guess none of the SCOTUS members served with Teddy Roosevelt
in the "1st Volunteer United States Cavalry" ("the Rough Riders")
during the Spanish/American War; or as "Doughboys" in WW-I; elsewise
they would *have* "Judicial Notice" of the short-barreled shotgun's
"militia usefulness" *first hand*!
jj
--
John_Johnson
TXJo...@ix.netcom.com
© 1998 All rights reserved
Scot
<snip>
> I merely say that them people have the right to regulate privately owned
> guns. It is you who want to deny the people that right.
Where does this 'right to regulate' come from Albert? And don't for get
that 'the people' don't pass laws, their elected representatives do.
<snip>
> What matters is the will of the people and polls show that the majority want
> stricter gun control.
So, if 'the people' were to want to change pi to 3.0 so math would be
easier, or repeal the law of gravity you'd go along with it?
And the majority want stricter gun control than what?
> > They want to prohibit the American
> >people from making any laws unless HCI or an other gun control lobby
> >organization gives their approval.
> It is the NRA that tells the people they can't regulate guns because of
> constitutional reasons. However, tha NRA does push through gun laws like CCW
> so what they really want is the power to dictate to us what gun laws we may
> have.
HCI wants to dictate to the American people what they can and can't do
for recreation, or to protect themselves.
> > They want only the politicians to
> >pass laws that promote their agenda.
> That sounds like the NRA.
Sounds like all lobbying groups. That's why they exist.
<snip>
Scot
I'm still waiting for your grammatical analysis and sentence diagram of
Albert Isham
>
>
>>AI. Does it bother you that Miller was defended on the basis of the NRA's
>> interpretation of the Second Amendment and the law under which he was
charged
>> was not overturned?
>SCOT. While it is true that the SCOTUS sent the case back to the district
>court, AFTER THE DISTRICT COURT *HAD* OVERTURNED THE NFA'34, they only
>sent it back for further fact finding. The SCOTUS said the trial court
>had erred, but only in that they assumed that a short shotgun had some
>military utility.
>
Tell me, Scot, what part of "the challenged judgement must be reversed" do you
not understand?
>
>>AI. Scot, how do you really feel about the Second Amendment? Should
privately
>> owned guns be immune to the control of public authority?
>
>SCOT. From a practical or legal standpoint? My personal opinion is that, just
>as we must allow filth to be published or shown as 'art', we must allow
>every US resident to own firearms.
>
AI. So you have no problem with arming criminals?
>SCOT. And from a practical standpoint, no gun control law has ever prevented a
>criminal from obtaining a gun, so what's the point?
>
AI. Where is your proof? Do you suppose that there are criminals in the UK who
are unable to get a gun? I think you have fallen for some of your own
propaganda.
>
>What was your source of commission, Branch, MOS, and Year Group? When
>did you serve in 'Nam, in what AO, and with what unit(s)?
I noted the ad hominem use that you and Sam Kersh made of my personal
information. We are here to debate gun control, not make ad hominem attacks.
Albert Isham
>
>
>> Is your gun a sacred cow? Should privately owned guns be immune to public
>> authority?
>
>Should speech be subject to public authority?
It is.
> Should government be able
>to say that certain religions are against the public order?
If they cause death or injury to others, yes.
> Should a
>magistrate be able to compel a person to testify against themselves?
No.
>Should a law enforcement officer be able to come into you home at any
>time for any reason?
>
No.
Now, Scot, I'vE answered your questions; when are you going to answer mine?
Should privately owned guns be sacred cows immune to the control of any
public authority?
>
Albert Isham
>
>
>> >You know, Albert, you've hit on something here, but not what you think
>> >you have. When we look at modern American society, with an elite that so
>> >fears an armed citizenry,
>
>> That "armed citizenry" is responsible for our high murder rate. What do you
>> think about an elite that doesn't give a damn about our murder rate so long
>> as they can have all the guns they want?
>
>
>There is no connection between our murder rate and a lack of gun
>control.
Scot, did you just dream this up or do you have proof of that assertion?
> In no country have gun control laws taken a previously high
>homicide rate and reduced it.
>
Where is your proof?
"All forms of homicide are more frequent in the United States than in England
and Wales. Killings by all means other then guns occur in the United States at
a rate per million population that is 3.7 times the nongun homicide rate
reported in England and Wales. But homicides by handguns occur in the United
States at a rate per million population that is 175 times as great. This
comparison leads the authors to conclude that 'there is little doubt that
limiting the availability of firearms in the United States would have a
substantial effect on homicide and probably also on other violent crime'
(Clarke and Mayhew 1988:106)."
"Crime is Not the Problem", Zimring and Hawkins
The Clarke and Mayhew citation comes from;
Clarke, Ronald V., and Pat Mayhew. 1988. "The British Gas Suicide Story and Its
Criminological Implications." In Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, ed.
Michael Tonry and Norval Morris, Vol. 10, p. 107. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
>