As a result of the liberals, the 2nd Amdend is now
la...@rightwingers.net
> A government
>controled militia did not hand out arms so the people could take up
>arms against it, NO it was that fact the general population had access
>to arms, seperately and independantly from the government, that
>allowed them to fight for freedom against the goverment.
The STATE (people) has the ability to control WHO, WHERE, WHAT constitutes
what will be NECESSARY for the SECURITY of a "free state"
States are subservient to the Federal Government.
There is NO specific wording that an "Individual" (apart from the
collective...STATE) has the right to own any weapon he chooses free of ALL
restrictions.
You may "interpret" that unilaterally.
That don't make it true
Besides. IF the NRA actually believed that "YOU" have the right to own any
gun, under any circumstance, then WHY would they spend MILLIONS combating ANY
legislation (or legislator) that MIGHT introduce legislation to do that?
If any law passed was "unconstitutional", then it COULD NOT possible be the
law of the land, could it?
>
>Can we coin the phase "Separation of Arms and State" is guaranteed by
>the constitution by the 2nd Amendment?
>
>==/Red Eagle
>
>______________________________________________________________________________
>Total Internet privacy -- get your Freedom pseudonym at http://www.freedom.net
>
>
>
>--RUT4L37890XZB7F9XG9N47T0SA9Z3E6KZPUQYRPDIS2Z5NYS--
>
>
Bryan Vakos
> what will be NECESSARY for the SECURITY of a "free state"
The State and the people are not the same thing. The state is an instrument
of the people and a servant thereof, not the people itself.
> States are subservient to the Federal Government.
States are most decidely NOT subservient to the Federal government. States
lent certain specifically delineated authorities to the Federal government
in order that it may, as an agent of the states, act on behalf of the
states. Virginia, for one, was very clear in its ratification of the
Constitution that it acquiesced to the creation of that entity only so long
as it did not abuse the rights lent to it. We reserved the right to withdraw
that authority should the Federal government abuse it. (That we were invaded
when we tried to is an entirely different discussion.)
That's the like saying the member states of the European Union and NATO are
subservient to those institutions. Since they created those institutions
nothing could be further from the truth.
> There is NO specific wording that an "Individual" (apart from the
> collective...STATE) has the right to own any weapon he chooses free of ALL
> restrictions.
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Which part of that don't you understand?
> You may "interpret" that unilaterally.
> That don't make it true
How is it that every other amendment in the Bill of Rights applies to the
individual but the second applies to the people collectively under the guise
of the state? To apply that logic to the First Amendment, the people would
collectively have the right to free speech, but you, individually would not.
The point of the Bill of Rights is to protect the rights of individuals from
the power of the state. They were added to the Constitution immediately
after ratification to mollify the concerns of men such as Patrick Henry who
had opposed the Constitution as originally written precisely because it did
not guarantee the security of the rights of individuals.
If you need further restraint than the Second Amendment as written feel free
to take the 10th :
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or
to the people."
As the Constitution does not specifically authorize the Federal government
to regulate the ownership of firearms that right is retained by the States
respectively, or to the people. So if New York wants to ban all firearms
they're welcome to do so. And if New York wants to issue Glocks with
textbooks in school that's none of the Federal government's business. That a
bunch of New Yorkers in Congress - along with representatives of the other
(inferior <eg>) 49 states - are attempting to usurp rights retained by
Virginia and the people of the Commonwealth is an absolute travesty.
> Besides. IF the NRA actually believed that "YOU" have the right to own
any
> gun, under any circumstance, then WHY would they spend MILLIONS combating
ANY
> legislation (or legislator) that MIGHT introduce legislation to do that?
Gee, and I was under the impression that they paid all those lobbyists to
protect our right to own any weapon we choose.
> If any law passed was "unconstitutional", then it COULD NOT possible be
the
> law of the land, could it?
Correct, it would not. See South Carolina and concept of nullification.
Their method was wrong, but they certainly had a point.
> >Can we coin the phase "Separation of Arms and State" is guaranteed by
> >the constitution by the 2nd Amendment?
Separation of my arms from the state, certainly. Separation of church and
state isn't guaranteed by the Constitution though. It was taken from a
letter written by Jefferson to a church assuring them that the government
wouldn't interfere with their free practice of religion. Fairly soon it'll
be illegal to pray just about everywhere except in my own home, under the
covers, with the lights off... which coincidentally is where I have to go to
smoke these days. Some separation of church and state we've got isn't it?
Furthermore, if you read the Second Amendment again, there is a prohibition
only against Congress restricting freedom of religion, freedom of speech,
etc. State governments are free to do as they please and some did, if I
recall, have state churches at that time. Judging by the speech codes on
most Northern campuses, they don't seem to mind restricting free speech
either.
Bill Smith
>rede...@trial.freedom.net wrote:
>
>> A government
>>controled militia did not hand out arms so the people could take up
>>arms against it, NO it was that fact the general population had access
>>to arms, seperately and independantly from the government, that
>>allowed them to fight for freedom against the goverment.
>
>The STATE (people) has the ability to control WHO, WHERE, WHAT constitutes
>what will be NECESSARY for the SECURITY of a "free state"
>
>States are subservient to the Federal Government.
>
>There is NO specific wording that an "Individual" (apart from the
>collective...STATE) has the right to own any weapon he chooses free of ALL
>restrictions.
SCOTUS has already found the NICS to be constitutional, the argument
then becomes how much regulation can be permitted. The Constitution
does not give the government the power to deny any right absent
criminal activity or mental instability.
>You may "interpret" that unilaterally.
>
>That don't make it true
>
>Besides. IF the NRA actually believed that "YOU" have the right to own any
>gun, under any circumstance, then WHY would they spend MILLIONS combating ANY
>legislation (or legislator) that MIGHT introduce legislation to do that?
>
>If any law passed was "unconstitutional", then it COULD NOT possible be the
>law of the land, could it?
>
Any law is law until a court decides otherwise (ultimately SCOTUS).
There are many laws on the books that have never been tested in the
courts. The problem has become our elected officials regarding the
Constitution as an impediment rather than a guide. Someone, at great
expense, has to fight it all the way through the courts, to get a bad
law thrown out. President Clinton has been the best, so far, at
government you can get away with. Exactly the sort the framers were
concerned about.
Bill Smith
>>
>>Can we coin the phase "Separation of Arms and State" is guaranteed by
>>the constitution by the 2nd Amendment?
>>
Caruso
<la...@rightwingers.net> wrote in message
news:395d180b....@169.132.11.12...
> rede...@trial.freedom.net wrote:
>
> > A government
> >controled militia did not hand out arms so the people could take up
> >arms against it, NO it was that fact the general population had access
> >to arms, seperately and independantly from the government, that
> >allowed them to fight for freedom against the goverment.
>
> The STATE (people) has the ability to control WHO, WHERE, WHAT constitutes
> what will be NECESSARY for the SECURITY of a "free state"
>
> States are subservient to the Federal Government.
>
> There is NO specific wording that an "Individual" (apart from the
> collective...STATE) has the right to own any weapon he chooses free of ALL
> restrictions.
>
>
> That don't make it true
>
> Besides. IF the NRA actually believed that "YOU" have the right to own
any
> gun, under any circumstance, then WHY would they spend MILLIONS combating
ANY
> legislation (or legislator) that MIGHT introduce legislation to do that?
>
> If any law passed was "unconstitutional", then it COULD NOT possible be
the
> law of the land, could it?
>
>
> >
cguinn
>
>
>
>
>
>effectively this:
>
>"A well government regulated people, being necessary to the peace and
>preservation of a federal government, the right of the federal
>govenment to regulate and control arms, shall not be infringed."
>
>Okay now, everyone siding with our dysfunctional president on the
>left, do I effectively capture what your believe the INTENT of
>founders of this once great nation of ours was for the 2nd Bill of
>Rights?
>
>Or, for those that could care less about the concepts, philosophy,
>reasons, history and importance on the second amendment, does that
>effectively convey what you think it SHOULD mean?
>
>Now, for all you liberals out there, as you have cookouts and watch
>the fireworks this fourth of July, just remember that free uninfringed
>access to arms made the colonies indepedance possible. A government
>controled militia did not hand out arms so the people could take up
>arms against it, NO it was that fact the general population had access
>to arms, seperately and independantly from the government, that
>allowed them to fight for freedom against the goverment.
>
>Can we coin the phase "Separation of Arms and State" is guaranteed by
>the constitution by the 2nd Amendment?
>
>==/Red Eagle
>
>______________________________________________________________________________
>Total Internet privacy -- get your Freedom pseudonym at http://www.freedom.net
>
Why should I give a shit what Clinton thinks the intent of the 2nd is?
He can't even agree on what the definition of "IS" is!!! >:-p
cguinn
"When only the police have guns, it's called a police state!" - Unknown
"Gun control is the ability to put five shots in the same hole." - Ted Nugent
cguinn
>rede...@trial.freedom.net wrote:
>
>> A government
>>controled militia did not hand out arms so the people could take up
>>arms against it, NO it was that fact the general population had access
>>to arms, seperately and independantly from the government, that
>>allowed them to fight for freedom against the goverment.
>
>The STATE (people) has the ability to control WHO, WHERE, WHAT constitutes
>what will be NECESSARY for the SECURITY of a "free state"
Yes, the people are the State! (As in the Federal Government, not just
the state governments!!!!)
>States are subservient to the Federal Government.
No, the federal government is subserviant to the PEOPLE, who ARE the
state!!
>There is NO specific wording that an "Individual" (apart from the
>collective...STATE) has the right to own any weapon he chooses free of ALL
>restrictions.
The Supreme Court in U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquirdez, 494 US 259 (1990),
ruled that the term "The People" means the SAME THING wherever it is
used in the Constitution! That means the 2nd is an individual right
just as the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 9th ammendments are! Are you SERIOUSLY
trying to tell us that only the STATE GOVERNMENTS have the right to
free speech, religion, protection from illegal search & seizure,
self-incrimination, etc.?? Just how would a STATE GOVERNMENT use it's
freedom of religion?? The very idea is absurd!!!
>You may "interpret" that unilaterally.
>
>That don't make it true
>Besides. IF the NRA actually believed that "YOU" have the right to own any
>gun, under any circumstance, then WHY would they spend MILLIONS combating ANY
>legislation (or legislator) that MIGHT introduce legislation to do that?
Because idiots like you believe that we do not!
>If any law passed was "unconstitutional", then it COULD NOT possible be the
>law of the land, could it?
Correct!! An unconstitutional law does not have to be obeyed!!!!!
If you are arrested for disobeying an unconstitutional law, you
challenge it! If it IS struck down as unconstitutional, you get off
scott-free!!! That's the way it works!
OryGunner
>
> > A government
> >controled militia did not hand out arms so the people could take up
> >arms against it, NO it was that fact the general population had access
> >to arms, seperately and independantly from the government, that
> >allowed them to fight for freedom against the goverment.
>
> The STATE (people) has the ability to control WHO, WHERE, WHAT constitutes
> what will be NECESSARY for the SECURITY of a "free state"
What is up with this State (people) bullshit? Where in the constitution
does it say that the State and people are the same thing? Actually, in the
10th Amendment, it says specifically, "The powers not delegated to the
United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are
reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. " It says States OR
the people. The State and the People can't be the same thing if it's an OR,
is it?
> States are subservient to the Federal Government.
See above Amendment. The Federal Government only has powers over the states
that the Constitution SAYS it has. Any power over the states by the Federal
Government not written in the Constitution is reserved to the States.
> There is NO specific wording that an "Individual" (apart from the
> collective...STATE) has the right to own any weapon he chooses free of ALL
> restrictions.
I can pick this apart one by one.
States have no rights. States have POWERS. Individual PEOPLE have Rights.
Give me one example in the Constitution where a State (or the Federal
Government) has a "Right".
"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be Infringed."
Hmm. To Infringe upon a right would be restricting it, wouldn't it? So
there IS specific wording that an individual has the right to keep and bear
arms, and that right shall NOT be infringed. Exactly what "arms" defines is
up for debate (is an Abhrams battle tank an "arm"?), but I think it's pretty
damn specific. as far as what "People" means, jeeze, look at the bill of
rights as a whole, and every one of them protects an individual's rights.
The part "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
free state," is not a limiting factor in the amendment, but one important
reason why it protects our right to keep and bear arms. Besides, it really
wouldn't even be a limiting factor anyway (if you were ignorant enough to
believe so), because as George Mason stated during Virginia's Convention to
Ratify the Constitution in 1788, "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the
whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to
enslave them."
> You may "interpret" that unilaterally.
>
> That don't make it true
>
> Besides. IF the NRA actually believed that "YOU" have the right to own
any
> gun, under any circumstance, then WHY would they spend MILLIONS combating
ANY
> legislation (or legislator) that MIGHT introduce legislation to do that?
Hmm. I wonder about that. Do you have any specific examples? While it is
true the NRA does go against some Constitutionalists' beliefs, they believe
(as I do), that it is important to TRY to keep criminals from buying guns
through normal commercial means. The NICS system is a great way to do this,
but I feel that emphasis needs to be put on using it as a tool to protect
gun dealers from liability, and for apprehending people who attempt to buy a
gun illegally.
> If any law passed was "unconstitutional", then it COULD NOT possible be
the
> law of the land, could it?
MANY unconstitutional laws have been passed, and the Judical branch is
supposed to be the check that fixes that, but we ARE only human. The amount
of ignorance and apathy that exists in this country about our Constitution
and our rights is pitiful. Most people don't even realize that it is the
PEOPLE that are supposed to hold the ultimate power over our government.
> >Can we coin the phase "Separation of Arms and State" is guaranteed by
> >the constitution by the 2nd Amendment?
No, they'd just use it to ban firearms from our schools...Oops. already done
that anyway, haven't they?
> >
> >==/Red Eagle
> >
>
>___________________________________________________________________________
___
> >Total Internet privacy -- get your Freedom pseudonym at
http://www.freedom.net
> >
...The people of this country need to wake up and smell the Constitution...
...OryGunner...
msm...@my-deja.com
rede...@trial.freedom.net wrote:
> effectively this:
>
> "A well government regulated people, being necessary to the peace and
> preservation of a federal government, the right of the federal
> govenment to regulate and control arms, shall not be infringed."
That's not true.
There are an awful lot of gun grabbers who THINK that this is what
it means. However, the Emerson case is likely to shock them, once
the courts rule in favor of gun rights.
Let's keep it clear :)
Mike Smith
--
Email: maxomenos@SPAM=DEATH.mindspring.com
Member, National Rifle Association
Member, American Civil Liberties Union
Member, The Witches' Voice (http://www.witchvox.com)
Petition against gun control measures: http://www.d2a.org/petition.htm
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Foolcow
>rede...@trial.freedom.net wrote:
>
>> A government
>>controled militia did not hand out arms so the people could take up
>>arms against it, NO it was that fact the general population had access
>>to arms, seperately and independantly from the government, that
>>allowed them to fight for freedom against the goverment.
>
>The STATE (people) has the ability to control WHO, WHERE, WHAT constitutes
>what will be NECESSARY for the SECURITY of a "free state"
No. The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says what is necessary to
the security of a free state.
>
>States are subservient to the Federal Government.
And accordingly, amendments to the Federal Constitution must be ratified by the
states.
<sarcasm>
>
>There is NO specific wording that an "Individual" (apart from the
>collective...STATE) has the right to own any weapon he chooses free of ALL
>restrictions.
"People" is the plural of "person." Otherwise, the amendment would read, "The
right of the states to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
>
>You may "interpret" that unilaterally.
>
>That don't make it true
Your command of written English is impressive; this explains your excellent
interpretation of the Constitution.
>
>Besides. IF the NRA actually believed that "YOU" have the right to own any
>gun, under any circumstance, then WHY would they spend MILLIONS combating ANY
>legislation (or legislator) that MIGHT introduce legislation to do that?
You are asking why unconstitutional legislation should be fought against.
Hmmmmm . . . think, think think.
>
>If any law passed was "unconstitutional", then it COULD NOT possible be the
>law of the land, could it?
It would be, until the Supreme Court decided that the law should not be
applied, on that basis.
>
>
la...@rightwingers.net
>Dumb Ass TROLL!
You little cunts get your panties in a wad every time you get your ass kicked,
don't ya?
Craig
> what will be NECESSARY for the SECURITY of a "free state"
>
Staes have rights enumerated in the consitiution and the Federal government
is subserviant to the States in some ways as well. The question is not about
States rights but rather the rights of "the people". The people are not
subservient to the government and are limited only by constitutional laws.
The government is subservient to the people.
> There is NO specific wording that an "Individual" (apart from the
> collective...STATE) has the right to own any weapon he chooses free of ALL
> restrictions.
>
The word "militia" means "the people" or the individual.
> You may "interpret" that unilaterally.
> That don't make it true
No you are making a false interpretation, and therefore not worth the waste
of disk space.
> Besides. IF the NRA actually believed that "YOU" have the right to own
any
> gun, under any circumstance, then WHY would they spend MILLIONS combating
ANY
> legislation (or legislator) that MIGHT introduce legislation to do that?
The wheels of justice work slowly. We will have our rights returned to us
in due course.
> If any law passed was "unconstitutional", then it COULD NOT possible be
the
> law of the land, could it?
It would be a law until ruled unconstitutional. As many of the current
overly restrictive laws will be ruled unconstitutional.
Craig Irish
kqu...@my-deja.com
Either way, using profanity as the only response to a posts shows he
has a mental level less than a cockroach.
Thanks
Kevin Q.
kqu...@chartertn.net - Regular Email
kwqu...@hotmail.com - NRA / Pro-gun related email
NRA-ILA Election Volunteer Coordinator - 1st District Tennessee
In article <395d51c0....@169.132.11.12>,
Jeffrey C. Dege
>
><la...@rightwingers.net> wrote in message
>news:395d180b....@169.132.11.12...
>>
>
>Staes have rights enumerated
States have powers, people have rights.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people.
--
You'd think that after all this time
I would have dreamed up a really clever .sig!
Craig
Jeffrey C. Dege <jd...@jdege.visi.com> wrote in message
news:slrn8lqt6h...@jdege.visi.com...
I think that the "States Rights" argument can be valid when resolving
conflicts between State and Federal government. Courts have ruled many
times that the Federal government can't force a State to enact Federal law,
when it was in conflict with "States Rights" as enumerated in the
constitution:
Article IV
Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public
acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the
Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts,
records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
Section 2. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges
and immunities of citizens in the several states.
A person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime, who
shall flee from justice, and be found in another state, shall on demand of
the executive authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered up, to
be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime.
No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof,
escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation
therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up
on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.
Section 3. New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but
no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any
other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states,
or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states
concerned as well as of the Congress.
The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and
regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the
United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to
prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.
Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a
republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against
invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when
the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.
--
Craig Irish
"Though much stronger than the standard states' rights reading, this chain
of argument has some weak links of its own. First, it appears that the
adjective "well regulated" did not imply broad state authority to disarm the
general militia; indeed, its use in various state constitutional antecedents
of the Second Amendment suggests just the opposite."
Akhil Reed Amar - http://www.2ndlawlib.org/journals/amar.html
azazel
"Bryan Vakos" <ruf...@no.spam> wrote:
> > The STATE (people) has the ability to control WHO, WHERE, WHAT constitutes
> > what will be NECESSARY for the SECURITY of a "free state"
>
> of the people and a servant thereof, not the people itself.
>
>
> lent certain specifically delineated authorities to the Federal government
> in order that it may, as an agent of the states, act on behalf of the
> states. Virginia, for one, was very clear in its ratification of the
> Constitution that it acquiesced to the creation of that entity only so long
> as it did not abuse the rights lent to it. We reserved the right to withdraw
> that authority should the Federal government abuse it. (That we were invaded
> when we tried to is an entirely different discussion.)
>
> That's the like saying the member states of the European Union and NATO are
> subservient to those institutions. Since they created those institutions
> nothing could be further from the truth.
>
> > collective...STATE) has the right to own any weapon he chooses free of ALL
> > restrictions.
>
> Which part of that don't you understand?
>
> > That don't make it true
>
> individual but the second applies to the people collectively under the guise
> of the state? To apply that logic to the First Amendment, the people would
> collectively have the right to free speech, but you, individually would not.
> The point of the Bill of Rights is to protect the rights of individuals from
> the power of the state. They were added to the Constitution immediately
> after ratification to mollify the concerns of men such as Patrick Henry who
> had opposed the Constitution as originally written precisely because it did
> not guarantee the security of the rights of individuals.
>
> If you need further restraint than the Second Amendment as written feel free
> to take the 10th :
>
> prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or
> to the people."
>
> to regulate the ownership of firearms that right is retained by the States
> respectively, or to the people. So if New York wants to ban all firearms
> they're welcome to do so. And if New York wants to issue Glocks with
> textbooks in school that's none of the Federal government's business. That a
> bunch of New Yorkers in Congress - along with representatives of the other
> (inferior <eg>) 49 states - are attempting to usurp rights retained by
> Virginia and the people of the Commonwealth is an absolute travesty.
>
> any
> > gun, under any circumstance, then WHY would they spend MILLIONS combating
> ANY
> > legislation (or legislator) that MIGHT introduce legislation to do that?
>
>
> > If any law passed was "unconstitutional", then it COULD NOT possible be
> the
> > law of the land, could it?
>
> Their method was wrong, but they certainly had a point.
>
> > >the constitution by the 2nd Amendment?
>
> state isn't guaranteed by the Constitution though. It was taken from a
> letter written by Jefferson to a church assuring them that the government
> wouldn't interfere with their free practice of religion. Fairly soon it'll
> be illegal to pray just about everywhere except in my own home, under the
> covers, with the lights off... which coincidentally is where I have to go to
> smoke these days. Some separation of church and state we've got isn't it?
i agree, i also think everyone should be allowed not just culture,
unfortunately, parent would if they saw naked pagans at school in ceremony.
if you won't allow one don't allow the other, also i think the constitution
says, the government can't promote a religion either
> Furthermore, if you read the Second Amendment again, there is a prohibition
> only against Congress restricting freedom of religion, freedom of speech,
> etc. State governments are free to do as they please and some did, if I
> recall, have state churches at that time. Judging by the speech codes on
> most Northern campuses, they don't seem to mind restricting free speech
> either.
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Chris Meissen
[ . . . ]
>Now, for all you liberals out there, as you have cookouts and watch
>the fireworks this fourth of July, just remember that free uninfringed
>access to arms made the colonies indepedance possible. A government
>controled militia did not hand out arms so the people could take up
>arms against it, NO it was that fact the general population had access
>to arms, seperately and independantly from the government, that
>allowed them to fight for freedom against the goverment.
And that the "shot heard 'round the world" which started it was a
result of the government sending troops to confiscate the arms,
ammunition, including cannon, of private citizens. When those
citizens stood and refused to give up their arms at Lexington and
Concord, Massachussetts, the Revolution began in earnest.
Iconoclast
>From: Ch...@Meissen.spamtrap.org (Chris Meissen)
>Subject: Re: As a result of the liberals, the 2nd Amdend is now
>Date: 2 Jul 2000 04:50:19 GMT
>On Fri, 30 Jun 2000 20:16:29 GMT, rede...@trial.freedom.net wrote:
> [ . . . ]
>>Now, for all you liberals out there, as you have cookouts and watch
>>the fireworks this fourth of July, just remember that free uninfringed
>>access to arms made the colonies indepedance possible. A government
>>controled militia did not hand out arms so the people could take up
>>arms against it, NO it was that fact the general population had access
>>to arms, seperately and independantly from the government, that
>>allowed them to fight for freedom against the goverment.
This is of course a myth taught in elementary school history
classes.
It has long been claimed that at the time of the Revolution every
citizen grabbed their long rifle and headed off to win our freedom.
A study by Bellesiles of protabe records from 1763 to 1790 in western
New England and Pennsylvania showed that only 14% of the individuals who
died left a gun in their estate and of those 53% were described as "unusable"
(because there were few gunsmiths and blacksmiths were not skilled enough to
repair them).
In the New Hampshire militia, less than 1/2 reported with their own guns.
In the French and Indian War, 200 reported to the VA militia -- bringing a
total of 80 guns.
Even at Lexington and Concord, some of the Minute Men turned up to
fight -- without guns.
The idea that every man ran to fight the British carrying his own gun
is nothing more than a myth.
IC
whitepilot
> western
> New England and Pennsylvania showed that only 14% of the
> individuals who
> died left a gun in their estate and of those 53% were described as
> "unusable"
> (because there were few gunsmiths and blacksmiths were not skilled
> enough to
> repair them).
Most folks during that period owned weapons since childhhod, thus
eliminating the need to leave a gun in one's estate (unless, of course,
it was unusable.)
In the French and Indian War, 200 reported to the VA militia --
> bringing a
> total of 80 guns.
Being origanally from VA, I can tell you that many who were FORCED, to
fight that war were indentured servants, or former indentured servants
who were not allowed to own anything, let alone guns.
The idea that every man ran to fight the British carrying his own
> gun
> is nothing more than a myth.
I'll concede that point, but the fact is that the colonists won their
freedom by SHOOTING people. And it wasn't with spitballs.
> > IC
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Steve Hix
(Iconoclast ) wrote:
> A study by Bellesiles of protabe records from 1763 to 1790 in western
> New England and Pennsylvania showed that only 14% of the individuals who
> died left a gun in their estate and of those 53% were described as
> "unusable"
Belleisle's study is fatally flawed in its basic method: Most
firearms were not expensive enough to be passed on through probate.
Most would have been handed down to a younger relation when the
owner became too old or otherwise unable to use the tool
He may have compiled a list of many of the most-expensive custom
firearms of the period, though.
Other sources, ignored by Belleisle, include records of traders and
other suppliers of off-the-rack weapons, mostly smoothbore, that
were imported from England, France, Belgium and Germany. Most of
them were sold for the equivalent of $2 to $10, with a very few being
decorated to a greater or lesser degree specifically as gifts to
individuals.
> (because there were few gunsmiths and blacksmiths were not skilled enough
> to repair them).
Both rifles and smoothbore weapons were commonly made from scratch in
the colonies, with the notable exception of the lock mechanisms being
imported, generally from England. There are currently books filled with
the names and dates of operation of American gun makers from the
pre-revolutionary period. Almost all of them known because of surviving
examples of their work.
--
--
Steve Hix <se...@mac.com>
RD Thompson
wrote:
>In article <8jmhmb$bqp$1...@63.162.247.173> Ch...@Meissen.spamtrap.org (Chris Meissen) writes:
>>From: Ch...@Meissen.spamtrap.org (Chris Meissen)
>>Subject: Re: As a result of the liberals, the 2nd Amdend is now
>>Date: 2 Jul 2000 04:50:19 GMT
>
>>On Fri, 30 Jun 2000 20:16:29 GMT, rede...@trial.freedom.net wrote:
>
>> [ . . . ]
>>>Now, for all you liberals out there, as you have cookouts and watch
>>>the fireworks this fourth of July, just remember that free uninfringed
>>>access to arms made the colonies indepedance possible. A government
>>>controled militia did not hand out arms so the people could take up
>>>arms against it, NO it was that fact the general population had access
>>>to arms, seperately and independantly from the government, that
>>>allowed them to fight for freedom against the goverment.
>
> This is of course a myth taught in elementary school history
>classes.
>
> It has long been claimed that at the time of the Revolution every
>citizen grabbed their long rifle and headed off to win our freedom.
>
> A study by Bellesiles of protabe records
I think you mean probate. :^)
>...from 1763 to 1790 in western
>New England and Pennsylvania showed that only 14% of the individuals who
>died left a gun in their estate and of those 53% were described as "unusable"
>(because there were few gunsmiths and blacksmiths were not skilled enough to
>repair them).
And most poor people did not go through probate when they died. It
was simply that the remaining family assumed whatever was left behind.
> In the New Hampshire militia, less than 1/2 reported with their own guns.
In US v Miller, there is an example given of a state furnishing the
firearm if the person showing up was too poor to own one.
> In the French and Indian War, 200 reported to the VA militia -- bringing a
>total of 80 guns.
> Even at Lexington and Concord, some of the Minute Men turned up to
>fight -- without guns.
>
> The idea that every man ran to fight the British carrying his own gun
>is nothing more than a myth.
The ideas that every man ran to fight the British is actually a myth.
About 1/3 of the people cared enough to leave the British rule, about
1/3 wished to remain with the Brits and about 1/3 didn't give a shit
one way or the other as long as they made money in their business in
the new world.
Sleep well tonight.....
RD (Sandman)
NRA Life Member: http://www.nra.org
SAF Life Member: http://www.saf.org
Brassroots: http://www.brassroots.org
My web site: http://www.azstarnet.com/~sandman
The widest gap between liberals and conservatives is the blank space
between the First and Second Amendments.
Peter Mc Williams - 1996
I do not carry a gun because I fear my government, but
apparently my government fears me simply because I carry a gun.
Sandman - 1999
Whether a gun is used in a violent crime or to arrest the perpetrator...
the only difference is the hands on the grip.
Sandman - 2000
Jim Patrick
> The idea that every man ran to fight the British carrying his own gun
>is nothing more than a myth.
Is that a fact?
Jim
___________________________________________________
Near the end of the lost War of 1812,
American spirits were raised when 5,000 Americans,
including 2,000 frontiersmen with long barreled guns,
under the command of General Andrew Jackson,
defeated the British in the Battle of New Orleans.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
RD Thompson
wrote:
>
><la...@rightwingers.net> wrote in message
>news:395d180b....@169.132.11.12...
>>
>> The STATE (people) has the ability to control WHO, WHERE, WHAT constitutes
>> what will be NECESSARY for the SECURITY of a "free state"
>>
>> States are subservient to the Federal Government.
>
>Staes have rights enumerated in the consitiution and the Federal government
>is subserviant to the States in some ways as well. The question is not about
>States rights but rather the rights of "the people". The people are not
>subservient to the government and are limited only by constitutional laws.
Slight correction here. I am not sure just what you are meaning here
and it is the government, not the people, that is limited by the
constitution.
>The government is subservient to the people.
Yes.
>> There is NO specific wording that an "Individual" (apart from the
>> collective...STATE) has the right to own any weapon he chooses free of ALL
>> restrictions.
>>
>
>The word "militia" means "the people" or the individual.
The word militia legally means the body of citizens called to duty by
a state (Second Amendment) or the federal government (Article I,
section 8, clause 15). .
Dana
Iconoclast <Who...@WhereamI.com> wrote in message
news:WhoamI.559...@WhereamI.com...
> In article <8jmhmb$bqp$1...@63.162.247.173> Ch...@Meissen.spamtrap.org (Chris
Meissen) writes:
> >From: Ch...@Meissen.spamtrap.org (Chris Meissen)
> >Subject: Re: As a result of the liberals, the 2nd Amdend is now
> >Date: 2 Jul 2000 04:50:19 GMT
>
> >On Fri, 30 Jun 2000 20:16:29 GMT, rede...@trial.freedom.net wrote:
>
> > [ . . . ]
> >>Now, for all you liberals out there, as you have cookouts and watch
> >>the fireworks this fourth of July, just remember that free uninfringed
> >>access to arms made the colonies indepedance possible. A government
> >>controled militia did not hand out arms so the people could take up
> >>arms against it, NO it was that fact the general population had access
> >>to arms, seperately and independantly from the government, that
> >>allowed them to fight for freedom against the goverment.
>
> This is of course a myth taught in elementary school history
> classes.
>
> It has long been claimed that at the time of the Revolution every
> citizen grabbed their long rifle and headed off to win our freedom.
>
> New England and Pennsylvania showed that only 14% of the individuals who
> died left a gun in their estate and of those 53% were described as
"unusable"
> (because there were few gunsmiths and blacksmiths were not skilled enough
to
> repair them).
>
> total of 80 guns.
> Even at Lexington and Concord, some of the Minute Men turned up to
> fight -- without guns.
>
> is nothing more than a myth.
What did the milita troops use, maybe IC thinks they just trew rocks at the
redcoats.
>
Carman
Dana <ra...@home.com> wrote in message news:MAQ75.6020$ll.5...@news1.rdc1.az.home.com...
Carman wrote:
The study you mention has been criticised extensively. Your conclusions
regarding the firearms of the day are based on ignorance. Any skilled
blacksmith was certainly capable of making firearms and repairing them.
> > In the New Hampshire militia, less than 1/2 reported with their own guns.
> > In the French and Indian War, 200 reported to the VA militia -- bringing a
> > total of 80 guns.
> > Even at Lexington and Concord, some of the Minute Men turned up to
> > fight -- without guns.
> >
> > The idea that every man ran to fight the British carrying his own gun
> > is nothing more than a myth.
> > IC
>
> What did the milita troops use, maybe IC thinks they just threw rocks at the
> redcoats.
Carman wrote:
Those townsmen, (mostly), who didn't have their own weapons, and those
country dwellers that had to leave their weapons at home for use by their
families, certainly obtained the loan of arms from the more prosperous men
among the revolutionaries.
Another fine and plentiful source of weapons was the British dead. It would
be interesting to learn just what level of contribution to the overall firearms
stock of the new nation was made by the British in this manner.
Craig
RD Thompson <san...@azstarnet.com> wrote in message
news:q9evlscf9qnoal0ls...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 01 Jul 2000 02:14:46 GMT, "Craig" <crai...@worldnet.att.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> ><la...@rightwingers.net> wrote in message
> >news:395d180b....@169.132.11.12...
> >>
> >> The STATE (people) has the ability to control WHO, WHERE, WHAT
constitutes
> >> what will be NECESSARY for the SECURITY of a "free state"
> >>
> >> States are subservient to the Federal Government.
> >
> >Staes have rights enumerated in the consitiution and the Federal
government
> >is subserviant to the States in some ways as well. The question is not
about
> >States rights but rather the rights of "the people". The people are not
> >subservient to the government and are limited only by constitutional
laws.
>
> Slight correction here. I am not sure just what you are meaning here
> and it is the government, not the people, that is limited by the
> constitution.
People are limited by laws that do not violate the constitution. Your not
allowed to steal from your neihbor and such. Laws designed to prevent your
constitutional rights from being infringed on.
> >The government is subservient to the people.
>
> Yes.
>
> >> There is NO specific wording that an "Individual" (apart from the
> >> collective...STATE) has the right to own any weapon he chooses free of
ALL
> >> restrictions.
> >>
> >
> >The word "militia" means "the people" or the individual.
>
> The word militia legally means the body of citizens called to duty by
> a state (Second Amendment) or the federal government (Article I,
> section 8, clause 15). .
I beleive this would have been called a "select militia" at the time the
constitution was written. The word militia refered to able bodied citizens
capable of bearing arms. Though the common use of the word militia has
changed over time, the meaing in the constitution has not.
> Sleep well tonight.....
>
> RD (Sandman)
>
> NRA Life Member: http://www.nra.org
> SAF Life Member: http://www.saf.org
> Brassroots: http://www.brassroots.org
Regards,
Craig Irish
Jerry Burkowitz
>New England and Pennsylvania showed that only 14% of the individuals who
>died left a gun in their estate and of those 53% were described as "unusable"
>(because there were few gunsmiths and blacksmiths were not skilled enough to
>repair them).
Lord what ignorance...
1) It is pathetic ignorance to think that working firearms were
passed down in probate, and therefore would showe up on wills. The
fact is that working firearms, as a valuable tool, were almost always
passed down inter vivos, from one too old and sickly to the hale and
hearty younger members of the family able to put them to good use.
Have we lost our cultural memory so that we forget that before WW2,
90% of Americans lived on farms and vrtually every of these families
had a hunter?
2) As to the dearth of gunsmiths, the authors of the study simply
made it up as they went along. They found that many will-listed guns
didn't work (which of course is why they were left in the possession
of a dead or dying man to be handled in probate), the fact is that
there are no records of either gunsmiths or firearms registration, and
every village blacksmith worth his name had some skill in the simple
mechanisms that were the firearms of the time. Remington made his
first rifle basically in front of the firepace at home.
cguinn
wrote:
>In article <8jmhmb$bqp$1...@63.162.247.173> Ch...@Meissen.spamtrap.org (Chris Meissen) writes:
>>From: Ch...@Meissen.spamtrap.org (Chris Meissen)
>>Subject: Re: As a result of the liberals, the 2nd Amdend is now
>>Date: 2 Jul 2000 04:50:19 GMT
>
>>On Fri, 30 Jun 2000 20:16:29 GMT, rede...@trial.freedom.net wrote:
>
>> [ . . . ]
>>>Now, for all you liberals out there, as you have cookouts and watch
>>>the fireworks this fourth of July, just remember that free uninfringed
>>>access to arms made the colonies indepedance possible. A government
>>>controled militia did not hand out arms so the people could take up
>>>arms against it, NO it was that fact the general population had access
>>>to arms, seperately and independantly from the government, that
>>>allowed them to fight for freedom against the goverment.
>
> This is of course a myth taught in elementary school history
>classes.
> It has long been claimed that at the time of the Revolution every
>citizen grabbed their long rifle and headed off to win our freedom.
>
> The idea that every man ran to fight the British carrying his own gun
>is nothing more than a myth.
You need to repeat your elementary school history class then, because
it is TRUE!! Let's look at the opinion of the Supreme Court handed
down in the much cited U.S. v. Miller:
"The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from
the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of
Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators.
These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males
physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A
body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." 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." (Emphasis mine.)
Clearly the Supreme Court recognized that members of the militia were
expected to supply the OWN weapons!
RD Thompson
wrote:
>
>RD Thompson <san...@azstarnet.com> wrote in message
>news:q9evlscf9qnoal0ls...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 01 Jul 2000 02:14:46 GMT, "Craig" <crai...@worldnet.att.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> ><la...@rightwingers.net> wrote in message
>> >news:395d180b....@169.132.11.12...
>> >>
>> >> The STATE (people) has the ability to control WHO, WHERE, WHAT
>constitutes
>> >> what will be NECESSARY for the SECURITY of a "free state"
>> >>
>> >> States are subservient to the Federal Government.
>> >
>> >Staes have rights enumerated in the consitiution and the Federal
>government
>> >is subserviant to the States in some ways as well. The question is not
>about
>> >States rights but rather the rights of "the people". The people are not
>> >subservient to the government and are limited only by constitutional
>laws.
>>
>> Slight correction here. I am not sure just what you are meaning here
>> and it is the government, not the people, that is limited by the
>> constitution.
>
>People are limited by laws that do not violate the constitution. Your not
>allowed to steal from your neihbor and such. Laws designed to prevent your
>constitutional rights from being infringed on.
OK. Now I see for sure what you were saying.
>> >The government is subservient to the people.
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> >> There is NO specific wording that an "Individual" (apart from the
>> >> collective...STATE) has the right to own any weapon he chooses free of
>ALL
>> >> restrictions.
>> >>
>> >
>> >The word "militia" means "the people" or the individual.
>>
>> The word militia legally means the body of citizens called to duty by
>> a state (Second Amendment) or the federal government (Article I,
>> section 8, clause 15). .
>
>I beleive this would have been called a "select militia" at the time the
>constitution was written. The word militia refered to able bodied citizens
>capable of bearing arms.
The word militia in the Constitution means a body of men called to
service when needed (in lieu of a standing army) and drawn from a
pool of armed citizenry that was capable of carrying arms. It (the
militia) *still* reported to the government at some level (either
state or federal) and not to some individual running around with twigs
in his hat.
>Though the common use of the word militia has
>changed over time, the meaing in the constitution has not.
Agreed and that is what I posted up there.
Sleep well tonight.....
RD (Sandman)
NRA Life Member: http://www.nra.org
SAF Life Member: http://www.saf.org
Brassroots: http://www.brassroots.org
My web site: http://www.azstarnet.com/~sandman
no one of consequence
Steve Hix <se...@mac.com> wrote:
]In article <WhoamI.559...@WhereamI.com>, Who...@WhereamI.com
](Iconoclast ) wrote:
]
]> A study by Bellesiles of protabe records from 1763 to 1790 in western
]> New England and Pennsylvania showed that only 14% of the individuals who
]> died left a gun in their estate and of those 53% were described as
]> "unusable"
]Belleisle's study is fatally flawed in its basic method: Most
]firearms were not expensive enough to be passed on through probate.
]Most would have been handed down to a younger relation when the
]owner became too old or otherwise unable to use the tool
Or to be more blunt: I'd say he made a conclusion and looked for any piece of
evidence to support that conclusion.
--
|Patrick Chester (Now in Elmhurst, Illinois) wol...@io.com |
|"Anything I can do to help?" "Um. Short of dying? No, can't think of a |
| thing." -Morden, Vir. 'Interludes and Examinations' -Babylon 5 |
|Wittier remarks always come to mind just after sending your article.... |
Craig
> On Mon, 03 Jul 2000 00:23:35 GMT, "Craig" <crai...@worldnet.att.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >RD Thompson <san...@azstarnet.com> wrote in message
> >news:q9evlscf9qnoal0ls...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sat, 01 Jul 2000 02:14:46 GMT, "Craig" <crai...@worldnet.att.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >The word "militia" means "the people" or the individual.
> >> The word militia legally means the body of citizens called to duty by
> >> a state (Second Amendment) or the federal government (Article I,
> >> section 8, clause 15). .
> >
> >I beleive this would have been called a "select militia" at the time the
> >constitution was written. The word militia refered to able bodied
citizens
> >capable of bearing arms.
>
> The word militia in the Constitution means a body of men called to
> service when needed (in lieu of a standing army) and drawn from a
> pool of armed citizenry that was capable of carrying arms. It (the
> militia) *still* reported to the government at some level (either
> state or federal) and not to some individual running around with twigs
> in his hat.
I beleive we are dealing in semantics here. My veiw is that this "militia"
consists of citizens capable of bearing arms. When they are called into
service they would then be a "milita corp." or "select militia". The Second
Amendment clearly addresses the peoples right (militas right) to keep and
bear arms uninfringed. This "milita" may be called in defense of the nation
against an oppressive government, as well as being called on to defend the
nation from external forces. The Second Amendment does not say that citizens
are to defend the enemies of the government but speaks to the heart of the
defense of the nation.
> >Though the common use of the word militia has
> >changed over time, the meaing in the constitution has not.
>
> Agreed and that is what I posted up there.
>
>
>
> Sleep well tonight.....
>
> RD (Sandman)
>
> NRA Life Member: http://www.nra.org
> SAF Life Member: http://www.saf.org
> Brassroots: http://www.brassroots.org
>
> My web site: http://www.azstarnet.com/~sandman
>
Regards,
--
Craig Irish
Allan Lindsay-ONeal
"Iconoclast " wrote the usual put-down of America in message
news:WhoamI.559...@WhereamI.com...
> The idea that every man ran to fight the British carrying his own gun
> is nothing more than a myth.
So what? Enough of them did, and the rest is history.
Are you one of those guys who likes to pull the "tut tut" routine whenever
you hear something positive about America and her freedoms?
RD Thompson
wrote:
The unorganized one, yes.
>When they are called into
>service
....by one of the governments......
>they would then be a "milita corp." or "select militia".
Or the organized militia.
>The Second
>Amendment clearly addresses the peoples right (militas right) to keep and
>bear arms uninfringed.
No, it doesn't. It clearly addresses the power of the state to use
militias to protect itself from an overreaching central government
*AND* it recognizes the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
Two separate things. The people are what makes up the pool of armed
citizenry that the militia is drawn from.
>This "milita" may be called in defense of the nation
>against an oppressive government, as well as being called on to defend the
>nation from external forces.
Both of those are federal uses of the militia and addressed in Article
I, section 8, clause 15. "...to repel invasions, suppress
insurrections and execute the laws of the union."
>The Second Amendment does not say that citizens
>are to defend the enemies of the government but speaks to the heart of the
>defense of the nation.
The Second Amendment addresses the power of the state to protect
itself from the central government. The state does so by drawing from
that same pool of armed citizenry that the federal government does.
The Second Amendment prevents the federal government from disarming
the citizenry so as to prevent the states from being able to draw on
that resource.
The point is that in order to be a militia as understood in the
Constitution, that militia must report to a state or federal
government somewhere in its hierarchy. It is not an entirely private
sector army.
Sleep well tonight.....
RD (Sandman)
NRA Life Member: http://www.nra.org
SAF Life Member: http://www.saf.org
Brassroots: http://www.brassroots.org
My web site: http://www.azstarnet.com/~sandman
The widest gap between liberals and conservatives is the blank space
kqu...@my-deja.com
generation to generation in many families today without it being done
in a will. This is the case with a shotgun that I have in my
possession right now, and was requested to pass it down to one of my
nephews when I felt that the time was right. It belonged to their
great, great, grandfather who purchased it in 1901 as a brand new
shotgun. It was passed down from father to son to the generation just
before my nephews as the father got older and no longer was able to
hunt with it. My brother-in-law was quite a bit older than my sister
when they married him and had their 4 sons. Once their marriage ended,
he was not sure if he would be around to make the decision which son
would be best to pass the shotgun down to because of his age. That
chore befell my father, and as my father started to grow seriously ill
he passed the chore down to me, along with his firearms.
This happens every day in the U.S. without the courts or the law being
involved at all. It is a legal way to do things, and there is never
any court records of the transactions. That is the same way things
have been done for hundreds of years, if not thousands with the means
to provide food for the family and to protect the family from harm. It
was known to happen when men carried swords, and the long bows of
Englad as well.
--
Thanks
Kevin Q.
kqu...@chartertn.net - Regular Email
kwqu...@hotmail.com - NRA / Pro-gun related email
NRA-ILA Election Volunteer Coordinator - 1st District Tennessee
In article <8jrh2r$8jp$1...@hiram.io.com>,
phls...@flash.net
msm...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <slq016...@corp.supernews.com>,
> rede...@trial.freedom.net wrote:
>
> > effectively this:
> >
> > "A well government regulated people, being necessary to the peace and
> > preservation of a federal government, the right of the federal
> > govenment to regulate and control arms, shall not be infringed."
>
> That's not true.
>
> There are an awful lot of gun grabbers who THINK that this is what
> it means. However, the Emerson case is likely to shock them, once
> the courts rule in favor of gun rights.
>
Guns do not have rights, despite what you fanatics think.
Johann von Tebbes
<phls...@flash.net> wrote in message news:3962058B...@flash.net...
Muskets were 'state of the art' when the 2nd
amendment was written
Protect your freedom....Join the NRA!
When guns are outlawed, only street people
and other democrats will have guns - Criminals
will still get them!
>
don
>
> msm...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > In article <slq016...@corp.supernews.com>,
> > rede...@trial.freedom.net wrote:
> >
> > > effectively this:
> > >
> > > "A well government regulated people, being necessary to the peace and
> > > preservation of a federal government, the right of the federal
> > > govenment to regulate and control arms, shall not be infringed."
> >
> > That's not true.
> >
> > There are an awful lot of gun grabbers who THINK that this is what
> > it means. However, the Emerson case is likely to shock them, once
> > the courts rule in favor of gun rights.
> >
>
> Guns do not have rights, despite what you fanatics think.
Wow! What wit. Now take your bow and sit down and be quiet while the
adults talk. That's a good boy. don
--
"Tender-handed stroke the nettle, And it stings you for your pains;
Grasp it like a man of mettle, And it soft as silk remains." Aaron Hill,
1685-1750
msm...@my-deja.com
phls...@flash.net wrote:
>
>
> msm...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > In article <slq016...@corp.supernews.com>,
> > rede...@trial.freedom.net wrote:
> >
> > > effectively this:
> > >
> > > "A well government regulated people, being necessary to the peace
and
> > > preservation of a federal government, the right of the federal
> > > govenment to regulate and control arms, shall not be infringed."
> >
> > That's not true.
> >
> > There are an awful lot of gun grabbers who THINK that this is what
> > it means. However, the Emerson case is likely to shock them, once
> > the courts rule in favor of gun rights.
> >
>
> Guns do not have rights, despite what you fanatics think.
>
>
I would never claim that guns have rights, unless it were proven (ha
ha) that guns were sentient. The right of the people to own guns is
an entirely different matter.
Mike Smith
--
Email: maxomenos@SPAM=DEATH.mindspring.com
Member, National Rifle Association
Member, American Civil Liberties Union
Member, The Witches' Voice (http://www.witchvox.com)
Petition against gun control measures: http://www.d2a.org/petition.htm
Frank Ney
Thompson <san...@azstarnet.com> to write:
>> A study by Bellesiles of protabe records
>
>I think you mean probate. :^)
At least he didn't say prostate (bonus points if you can name the movie).
Frank Ney N4ZHG WV/EMT-B LPWV NRA(L) ProvNRA GOA CCRKBA JPFO
--
"You don't expect governments to obey the law because of some
higher moral development. You expect them to obey the law because
they know that if they don't, those who aren't shot will be hanged."
-Michael Shirley
Just Say No to Gestapo Tactics http://www.freespeech.org/justsayno
Abuses by the BATF http://www.hamnet.net/~n4zhg/batfabus.html
L. Neil Smith for President! http://www.lns2000.org
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.12
GAT d- s:+ a35 C$ L++>++++$ P+ W++ N++ o-- K- w>--- O(++) M-
PS+++ PE++ Y+ PGP+ t+ 5++ X+ R tv+ b+++ DI+++ UF++ D++ G e+*
h* r++ y?*
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
David E. Young
which directly contradicts it.
As an example, here is a comment made by Lord Chatham in Parliament Janurary
20, 1775, describing America:
"My Lords, there [are] three millions of Whigs. Three millions of Whigs, my
Lords, with arms in their hands are a very formidable body."
[Quincy's London Journal, Mass. Hist. Soc. Proceedings, Vol. L, p.459]
Read the Original Sources. You will never regret having done so.
--
David E. Young dey...@up.net
Editor - The Origin of the Second Amendment:
A Documentary History of the Bill of Rights in
Commentaries on Liberty, Free Government,
and an Armed Populace, 1787-1792.
Information at http://members.xoom.com/youngde/
kqu...@my-deja.com wrote in message <8juc06$fgk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
kqualls
Actually the wording of the 2nd Amendment may not be referring to a State as
in one of the States of the United States of America at all. It can just as
easily be read to mean the security of the state of freedom. That would be
more in line with the intent of the Bill of Rights and as illustrated by the
Preamble that is actually on the Bill of Rights that is on display in the
Rotunda at the National Archives.
I tend to think that the above meaning is the right one, and that cuts off
any argument that this is an issue of the states ability to muster a
militia. That would have been covered in each states Constitution not in
the federal one. Also, if you compare the wording used in the 2nd
Amendment/Article and how the term state is used in other parts of the Bill
of Rights the way state is used there does not fit the pattern the writers
used for it to apply to the States of the United States of America.
--
Thanks
Kevin Q.
kqu...@chartertn.net - Regular Email
kwqu...@hotmail.com - NRA / Pro-gun related email
NRA-ILA Election Volunteer Coordinator - 1st District Tennessee
"Craig" <crai...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:rAQ85.7433$oh5.5...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> RD Thompson <san...@azstarnet.com> wrote in message
> news:mg85msc8drhhs5ipm...@4ax.com...
> Not necessarily. If the citizens of a cummunity got together and organized
a
> "militia corp." to fight an oppressive City/State/Federal government, they
> would be fighting under a social contract between citizens capable of
> bearing arms (militia) to regain the rights garunteed to them by the
> constitution.
>
> > >they would then be a "milita corp." or "select militia".
> >
> > Or the organized militia.
>
> OK
>
> > >The Second
> > >Amendment clearly addresses the peoples right (militas right) to keep
and
> > >bear arms uninfringed.
> >
> > No, it doesn't. It clearly addresses the power of the state to use
> > militias to protect itself from an overreaching central government
> > *AND* it recognizes the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
> > Two separate things.
> > The people are what makes up the pool of armed
> > citizenry that the militia is drawn from.
>
> The clear intent and truth of the BoR is that the Anti-Federalists
beleived
> that the constitution should be clear on what rights are reserved to "the
> people". They did not trust government to always stay righteous (and
rightly
> so). There would have been no agreement on the constitution with out the
> inclusion of the BoR. The BoR is about the rights of "the people", and
has
> been recognized many times by the SCotUS.
>
> The SA is about the peoples right to keep and bear arms. To say that it
> grants power to the state is completely false. The reference to the word
> "State" only speaks of the peoples right, through it's possesion of
weapons,
> to defend a free state. There is no mention of government control.
>
> > The people are what makes up the pool of armed
> > citizenry that the militia is drawn from.
>
> The pool of armed citizens are the "militia".
>
> > >This "milita" may be called in defense of the nation
> > >against an oppressive government, as well as being called on to defend
> the
> > >nation from external forces.
> >
> > Both of those are federal uses of the militia and addressed in Article
> > I, section 8, clause 15. "...to repel invasions, suppress
> > insurrections and execute the laws of the union."
>
> Yes, but the "militia" may also be used in an insurection to fight a
> tyranical government. Thus the true reason for the secound amendment.
> Peoeple have the right to defend themselves against tyranny and provide
for
> the common defense of their freedom and rights.
>
> > >The Second Amendment does not say that citizens
> > >are to defend the enemies of the government but speaks to the heart of
> the
> > >defense of the nation.
>
> (sorry, typos sometimes get in the way of meaning)
> This should have read : "The SA does not say that citizens are to defend
the
> enimies / of an unjust / government but speaks to the defense of / a free
/
> nation."
>
> > The Second Amendment addresses the power of the state to protect
> > itself from the central government. The state does so by drawing from
> > that same pool of armed citizenry that the federal government does.
> > The Second Amendment prevents the federal government from disarming
> > the citizenry so as to prevent the states from being able to draw on
> > that resource.
>
> No the SA recognizes the peoples right to keep and bear arms in defense of
a
> free state. Anytime a government becomes oppressive enough to warant
> cleansing it ceases to be a government of the "free" people. The people
can
> then take it back and reestablish it under the constitution. The people
may
> also be called into service, by governement, to defend the constitution
and
> soverngty of the state or country, but these powers are not addressed in
the
> SA, only the peoples rights.
>
> > The point is that in order to be a militia as understood in the
> > Constitution, that militia must report to a state or federal
> > government somewhere in its hierarchy. It is not an entirely private
> > sector army.
>
> No the "militia", as understood by the framers of the constitution, were
the
> "People" who had the inalienable right to defend their freedom with arms.
> The meaning is clear for all those who wish to see.
>
> > Sleep well tonight.....
> > RD (Sandman)
> >
> > NRA Life Member: http://www.nra.org
> > SAF Life Member: http://www.saf.org
> > Brassroots: http://www.brassroots.org
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Craig Irish
>
> "It must be conceded that there are . . . rights in every free government
> beyond the control of the State . . . There are limitations on
> [governmental] power which grow out of the essential nature of all free
> governments. Implied reservations of individual rights, without which the
> social compact could not exist, and which are respected by all governments
> entitled to the name.''
> - Justice Miller for the Court in Loan Association v.Topeka, 87 U.S. (20
> Wall.) 655, 662, 663 (1875):
> http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/constitution/bright.html
>
>
>
>
>
Stilt Man
Craig <crai...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Not necessarily. If the citizens of a cummunity got together and organized a
>"militia corp." to fight an oppressive City/State/Federal government, they
>would be fighting under a social contract between citizens capable of
>bearing arms (militia) to regain the rights garunteed to them by the
>constitution.
No. Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886) very emphatically denies that
there exists any private right to associate together as a military company
independent of specific federal or state legislation authorizing the same.
The militia is, quite simply, whatever armed force that the federal government
prescribes under their militia powers. How they are armed is up to the federal
government, the Second Amendment prohibits nothing more than the feds from
using that power to _disarm_ the militia.
>The SA is about the peoples right to keep and bear arms. To say that it
>grants power to the state is completely false. The reference to the word
>"State" only speaks of the peoples right, through it's possesion of weapons,
>to defend a free state. There is no mention of government control.
Article I, Section 8 of the original Constitution very specifically states
that the federal government has power to provide for the organization,
arming, and discipline of the militia, reserving to the states respectively
the sole appointment of the officers and the authority of training the
militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress. Whatever armed
force that such provisions create IS the militia.
At present, that armed force is:
(a) The National Guard, AND
(b) any further state militias that any given state wishes to gather and
equip at their own expense under their own rules.
If you are not called up into one of those two forces, the Second Amendment
does not today apply to you.
>> The people are what makes up the pool of armed
>> citizenry that the militia is drawn from.
>The pool of armed citizens are the "militia".
False. If the militia prescriptions of the federal government don't provide
for every citizen to arm themselves in preparation for militia duty, and does
not provide that every citizen is to consider themselves a militia member
subject to call, then no pool of citizens without more specific membership
in the militia than that is a militia.
In 1792, Congress chose to call such a pool a militia.
Today, they do not.
Neither provision violates the Second Amendment and, in fact, our militia
forces today are a more effective fighting force than they were would have
dreamed of in 1792.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
The Stilt Man stil...@teleport.com
http://www.teleport.com/~stiltman/stiltman.html
< We are Microsoft Borg '98. Lower your expectations and >
< surrender your money. Antitrust law is irrelevant. >
< Competition is irrelevant. We will add your financial and >
< technological distinctiveness to our own. Your software >
< will adapt to service ours. Resistance is futile. >
RD Thompson
>
>
>
>
>On Mon, 03 Jul 2000 17:00:40 -0700, RD Thompson
><san...@azstarnet.com> wrote:
>
>@> On Mon, 03 Jul 2000 00:23:35 GMT, "Craig" <crai...@worldnet.att.net>
>@> wrote:
>
>@> >> >The word "militia" means "the people" or the individual.
>
>@> >> The word militia legally means the body of citizens called to duty by
>@> >> a state (Second Amendment) or the federal government (Article I,
>@> >> section 8, clause 15). .
>
>@> >I beleive this would have been called a "select militia" at the time the
>@> >constitution was written. The word militia refered to able bodied citizens
>@> >capable of bearing arms.
>
>@> The word militia in the Constitution means a body of men called to
>@> service when needed (in lieu of a standing army) and drawn from a
>@> pool of armed citizenry that was capable of carrying arms. It (the
>@> militia) *still* reported to the government at some level (either
>@> state or federal) and not to some individual running around with twigs
>@> in his hat.
>
>Okay, what english government agent(s) did the patriots report to?
I assume that you mean during the Revolutionary War. Since the dates
of that war were from 1775 to 1783 and Declaration of Independence was
written in 1776 and the First Continental Congress was in 1774. That
would put the early patriots under the control of the First
Continental Congress until 1777 when the Articles of Confederation and
Perpetual Union were adopted. None of them english. Does that answer
your question? Particularly when the Constitution was written after
that war.
>Which english government agent called them into duty to fight the
>english? Wasn't it a bunch of guys with twigs in their hats that that
>fought the revolution, without ties and blessings of their government
>they where firing at?
Nope. They had the blessing of the First Continental Congress. Did
you sleep during that part of history in school?
>This convenient revisionist definition of militia (that somehow the
>founders wanted it tied to the authority and oversight of government)
>doesn't, to me, fit well with the events and people that wrote the
>words.
Too bad, you should really learn more history then. What do you
consider the militia to be. You? Your neighbor, five friends and
their bowls of Rice Krispies?
Sleep well tonight.....
RD (Sandman)
NRA Life Member: http://www.nra.org
SAF Life Member: http://www.saf.org
Brassroots: http://www.brassroots.org
My web site: http://www.azstarnet.com/~sandman
RD Thompson
wrote:
>
>RD Thompson <san...@azstarnet.com> wrote in message
>news:mg85msc8drhhs5ipm...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 04 Jul 2000 03:09:46 GMT, "Craig" <crai...@worldnet.att.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >RD Thompson <san...@azstarnet.com> wrote in message
>> >news:q0a2msguljjos5rqv...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Mon, 03 Jul 2000 00:23:35 GMT, "Craig" <crai...@worldnet.att.net>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >RD Thompson <san...@azstarnet.com> wrote in message
>> >> >news:q9evlscf9qnoal0ls...@4ax.com...
>> >> >> On Sat, 01 Jul 2000 02:14:46 GMT, "Craig"
><crai...@worldnet.att.net>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >The word "militia" means "the people" or the individual.
>> >
>> >> >> The word militia legally means the body of citizens called to duty
>by
>> >> >> a state (Second Amendment) or the federal government (Article I,
>> >> >> section 8, clause 15). .
>> >> >
>> >> >I beleive this would have been called a "select militia" at the time
>the
>> >> >constitution was written. The word militia refered to able bodied
>> >citizens
>> >> >capable of bearing arms.
>> >>
>> >> The word militia in the Constitution means a body of men called to
>> >> service when needed (in lieu of a standing army) and drawn from a
>> >> pool of armed citizenry that was capable of carrying arms. It (the
>> >> militia) *still* reported to the government at some level (either
>> >> state or federal) and not to some individual running around with twigs
>> >> in his hat.
>> >
>> >I beleive we are dealing in semantics here. My veiw is that this
>"militia"
>> >consists of citizens capable of bearing arms.
>>
>> The unorganized one, yes.
>>
>> >When they are called into
>> >service
>>
>> ....by one of the governments......
>>
>
>Not necessarily. If the citizens of a cummunity got together and organized a
>"militia corp." to fight an oppressive City/State/Federal government, they
>would be fighting under a social contract between citizens capable of
>bearing arms (militia) to regain the rights garunteed to them by the
>constitution.
They may call themselves a militia, but would not be legally
recognized as one. They would be recognized as a group but if you
showed up on city property bearing arms and using that threat as a
lever, you would soon be a test case for the Second Amendment. :^)
>> >they would then be a "milita corp." or "select militia".
>>
>> Or the organized militia.
>
>OK
>
>> >The Second
>> >Amendment clearly addresses the peoples right (militas right) to keep and
>> >bear arms uninfringed.
>>
>> No, it doesn't. It clearly addresses the power of the state to use
>> militias to protect itself from an overreaching central government
>> *AND* it recognizes the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
>> Two separate things.
>> The people are what makes up the pool of armed
>> citizenry that the militia is drawn from.
>
>The clear intent and truth of the BoR is that the Anti-Federalists beleived
>that the constitution should be clear on what rights are reserved to "the
>people".
And on powers of the state. The state is mentioned in both the Second
and Tenth Amendments. This does not mean that the right of the people
to keep and bear arms is tied in any way to that power of the state to
use a militia for its security. RKBA and the state power to call up
the militia are two different subjects. They simply happen to be in
the same amendment as the power of the state to call the militia is
dependent on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. There is
no tie the other way around.
>They did not trust government to always stay righteous (and rightly
>so). There would have been no agreement on the constitution with out the
>inclusion of the BoR. The BoR is about the rights of "the people", and has
>been recognized many times by the SCotUS.
Correct.
>The SA is about the peoples right to keep and bear arms. To say that it
>grants power to the state is completely false.
It says basically that the state has the power of a well regulated
militia to protect its security. It shows that the state does that
through its ability to call on an armed resource of citizenry to fill
that militia need. In order for that to work, the federal government
cannot infringe upon the right of those citizens to keep and bear
arms.
>The reference to the word
>"State" only speaks of the peoples right, through it's possesion of weapons,
>to defend a free state. There is no mention of government control.
Excuse me, but the word State refers to the state itself, not the
state of mind of its citizens. :^)
>> The people are what makes up the pool of armed
>> citizenry that the militia is drawn from.
>
>The pool of armed citizens are the "militia".
In general yes, the militia is composed of all who are physically
capable of working in the common defense of the state. It is not John
down the street and five of his neighbors who happen to be pissed at
the government.
>> >This "milita" may be called in defense of the nation
>> >against an oppressive government, as well as being called on to defend
>the
>> >nation from external forces.
>>
>> Both of those are federal uses of the militia and addressed in Article
>> I, section 8, clause 15. "...to repel invasions, suppress
>> insurrections and execute the laws of the union."
>
>Yes, but the "militia" may also be used in an insurection to fight a
>tyranical government. Thus the true reason for the secound amendment.
The actual term about insurrection is aimed directly at private armies
calling themselves whatever and is a result of Shay's Rebellion under
the Articles of Confederation. The purpose of the Second Amendment
is to protect the state from an overreaching central government. The
anti-federalists were in disfavor over a central government with more
power than it had under the Articles.
>Peoeple have the right to defend themselves against tyranny and provide for
>the common defense of their freedom and rights.
>
>> >The Second Amendment does not say that citizens
>> >are to defend the enemies of the government but speaks to the heart of
>the
>> >defense of the nation.
>
>(sorry, typos sometimes get in the way of meaning)
>This should have read : "The SA does not say that citizens are to defend the
>enimies / of an unjust / government but speaks to the defense of / a free /
>nation."
Say defense of / a free / state and I will agree with you.
>> The Second Amendment addresses the power of the state to protect
>> itself from the central government. The state does so by drawing from
>> that same pool of armed citizenry that the federal government does.
>> The Second Amendment prevents the federal government from disarming
>> the citizenry so as to prevent the states from being able to draw on
>> that resource.
>
>No the SA recognizes the peoples right to keep and bear arms in defense of a
>free state.
It does both as I have said. Even the Supreme Court has stated that
the RKBA does not come from the Second Amendment and is not dependent
on it for its existence.
>Anytime a government becomes oppressive enough to warant
>cleansing it ceases to be a government of the "free" people. The people can
>then take it back and reestablish it under the constitution.
Correct. Although if they lose they are insurrectionists and rebels.
It is only if they win that they become patriots. :^)
>The people may
>also be called into service, by governement, to defend the constitution and
>soverngty of the state or country, but these powers are not addressed in the
>SA, only the peoples rights.
Sorry, but one of them is addressed in the Second Amendment....the one
about the sovereignty of the state or the security of the free state.
Defense of the Constitution is covered in Article I, section 8, clause
15 where it states: "...execute the laws of the union...."
>> The point is that in order to be a militia as understood in the
>> Constitution, that militia must report to a state or federal
>> government somewhere in its hierarchy. It is not an entirely private
>> sector army.
>
>No the "militia", as understood by the framers of the constitution, were the
>"People" who had the inalienable right to defend their freedom with arms.
If you truly believe that the militia in the Constitution is a private
group of guys with no reporting to the government, then take all the
screens you need to explain Article I, section 8, clause 16.
>The meaning is clear for all those who wish to see.
Let me know how you feel after explaining the above. :^)
BTW, most of what we are discussing is, as you said earlier, semantics
with only a couple of real differences in our understanding.
RD Thompson
>
>
>msm...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>> In article <slq016...@corp.supernews.com>,
>> rede...@trial.freedom.net wrote:
>>
>> > effectively this:
>> >
>> > "A well government regulated people, being necessary to the peace and
>> > preservation of a federal government, the right of the federal
>> > govenment to regulate and control arms, shall not be infringed."
>>
>> That's not true.
>>
>> There are an awful lot of gun grabbers who THINK that this is what
>> it means. However, the Emerson case is likely to shock them, once
>> the courts rule in favor of gun rights.
>>
>
>Guns do not have rights, despite what you fanatics think.
Correct... they do not cause crime or suicides either, despite what
you fanatics think.
Craig
> >they would then be a "milita corp." or "select militia".
>
> Or the organized militia.
OK
> >The Second
> >Amendment clearly addresses the peoples right (militas right) to keep and
> >bear arms uninfringed.
>
> No, it doesn't. It clearly addresses the power of the state to use
> militias to protect itself from an overreaching central government
> *AND* it recognizes the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
> Two separate things.
> The people are what makes up the pool of armed
> citizenry that the militia is drawn from.
The clear intent and truth of the BoR is that the Anti-Federalists beleived
that the constitution should be clear on what rights are reserved to "the
people". They did not trust government to always stay righteous (and rightly
so). There would have been no agreement on the constitution with out the
inclusion of the BoR. The BoR is about the rights of "the people", and has
been recognized many times by the SCotUS.
The SA is about the peoples right to keep and bear arms. To say that it
grants power to the state is completely false. The reference to the word
"State" only speaks of the peoples right, through it's possesion of weapons,
to defend a free state. There is no mention of government control.
> The people are what makes up the pool of armed
> citizenry that the militia is drawn from.
The pool of armed citizens are the "militia".
> >This "milita" may be called in defense of the nation
> >against an oppressive government, as well as being called on to defend
the
> >nation from external forces.
>
> Both of those are federal uses of the militia and addressed in Article
> I, section 8, clause 15. "...to repel invasions, suppress
> insurrections and execute the laws of the union."
Yes, but the "militia" may also be used in an insurection to fight a
tyranical government. Thus the true reason for the secound amendment.
Peoeple have the right to defend themselves against tyranny and provide for
the common defense of their freedom and rights.
> >The Second Amendment does not say that citizens
> >are to defend the enemies of the government but speaks to the heart of
the
> >defense of the nation.
(sorry, typos sometimes get in the way of meaning)
This should have read : "The SA does not say that citizens are to defend the
enimies / of an unjust / government but speaks to the defense of / a free /
nation."
> The Second Amendment addresses the power of the state to protect
> itself from the central government. The state does so by drawing from
> that same pool of armed citizenry that the federal government does.
> The Second Amendment prevents the federal government from disarming
> the citizenry so as to prevent the states from being able to draw on
> that resource.
No the SA recognizes the peoples right to keep and bear arms in defense of a
free state. Anytime a government becomes oppressive enough to warant
cleansing it ceases to be a government of the "free" people. The people can
then take it back and reestablish it under the constitution. The people may
also be called into service, by governement, to defend the constitution and
soverngty of the state or country, but these powers are not addressed in the
SA, only the peoples rights.
> The point is that in order to be a militia as understood in the
> Constitution, that militia must report to a state or federal
> government somewhere in its hierarchy. It is not an entirely private
> sector army.
No the "militia", as understood by the framers of the constitution, were the
"People" who had the inalienable right to defend their freedom with arms.
The meaning is clear for all those who wish to see.
> Sleep well tonight.....
> RD (Sandman)
>
> NRA Life Member: http://www.nra.org
> SAF Life Member: http://www.saf.org
> Brassroots: http://www.brassroots.org
Regards,
Craig
agree that your definition of *state*, as written in the SA, is true to the
spirit of the BoR.
Regards,
Craig Irish
kqualls <kqualls@nospammersallowed_chartertn.net> wrote in message
news:3963e...@news.chartertn.net...
Seeker of Wisdom
<san...@azstarnet.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 04 Jul 2000 03:09:46 GMT, "Craig" <crai...@worldnet.att.net>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>RD Thompson <san...@azstarnet.com> wrote in message
>>news:q0a2msguljjos5rqv...@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 03 Jul 2000 00:23:35 GMT, "Craig" <crai...@worldnet.att.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >RD Thompson <san...@azstarnet.com> wrote in message
>>> >news:q9evlscf9qnoal0ls...@4ax.com...
>>> >> On Sat, 01 Jul 2000 02:14:46 GMT, "Craig" <crai...@worldnet.att.net>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> >The word "militia" means "the people" or the individual.
>>
(snip)
>
>>The Second
>>Amendment clearly addresses the peoples right (militas right) to keep and
>>bear arms uninfringed.
>
>No, it doesn't.
Yes it does.
> It clearly addresses the power of the state to use
>militias to protect itself from an overreaching central government
>*AND* it recognizes the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
>Two separate things. The people are what makes up the pool of armed
>citizenry that the militia is drawn from.
>
>>This "milita" may be called in defense of the nation
>>against an oppressive government, as well as being called on to defend the
>>nation from external forces.
>
>Both of those are federal uses of the militia and addressed in Article
>I, section 8, clause 15. "...to repel invasions, suppress
>insurrections and execute the laws of the union."
>
>
>>The Second Amendment does not say that citizens
>>are to defend the enemies of the government but speaks to the heart of the
>>defense of the nation.
>
>The Second Amendment addresses the power of the state to protect
>itself from the central government. The state does so by drawing from
>that same pool of armed citizenry that the federal government does.
>The Second Amendment prevents the federal government from disarming
>the citizenry so as to prevent the states from being able to draw on
>that resource.
>
>The point is that in order to be a militia as understood in the
>Constitution, that militia must report to a state or federal
>government somewhere in its hierarchy. It is not an entirely private
>sector army.
>
>
>Sleep well tonight.....
>
>RD (Sandman)
>
>NRA Life Member: http://www.nra.org
>SAF Life Member: http://www.saf.org
>Brassroots: http://www.brassroots.org
>
>My web site: http://www.azstarnet.com/~sandman
>
>The widest gap between liberals and conservatives is the blank space
>between the First and Second Amendments.
>
>Peter Mc Williams - 1996
>
>I do not carry a gun because I fear my government, but
>apparently my government fears me simply because I carry a gun.
>
>Sandman - 1999
>
>Whether a gun is used in a violent crime or to arrest the perpetrator...
>the only difference is the hands on the grip.
>
>Sandman - 2000
THE UNABRIDGED SECOND AMENDMENT
by J. Neil Schulman
If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you'd ring up Carl
Sagan,
right ? And if you wanted to know about desert warfare, the man to
call
would be Norman Schwarzkopf, no question about it. But who would you
call if you wanted the top expert on American usage, to tell you the
meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution ?
That was the question I asked A.C. Brocki, editorial coordinator of
the
Los Angeles Unified School District and formerly senior editor at
Houghton Mifflin Publishers -- who himself had been recommended to me
as
the foremost expert on English usage in the Los Angeles school system.
Mr. Brocki told me to get in touch with Roy Copperud, a retired
professor journalism at the University of Southern California and the
author of "American Usage and Style: The Consensus."
A little research lent support to Brocki's opinion of Professor
Copperud's expertise.
Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three
decades before embarking on a a distinguished 17-year career teaching
journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column
dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for "Editor and
Publisher", a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.
He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and
Merriam
Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert.
Copperud's fifth book on usage, "American Usage and Style: The
Consensus," has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold
since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American
Publisher's
Humanities Award.
That sounds like an expert to me.
After a brief telephone call to Professor Copperud in which I
introduced
myself but did not give him any indication of why I was interested, I
sent the following letter:
"I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as an
expert
in English usage, to analyze the text of the Second Amendment to the
United States Constitution, and extract the intent from the text.
"The text of the Second Amendment is, 'A well-regulated Militia, being
necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to
keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'
"The debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the
sentence, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security
of
a free State', is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with
respect to the independent clause containing the subject of the
sentence, 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed.'
"I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take into
consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be
restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and
intent.
Further, since your professional analysis will likely become part of
litigation regarding the consequences of the Second Amendment, I ask
that whatever analysis you make be a professional opinion that you
would
be willing to stand behind with your reputation, and even be willing
to
testify under oath to support, if necessary."
My letter framed several questions about the test of the Second
Amendment, then concluded:
"I realize that I am asking you to take on a major responsibility and
task with this letter. I am doing so because, as a citizen, I believe
it is vitally important to extract the actual meaning of the Second
Amendment. While I ask that your analysis not be affected by the
political importance of its results, I ask that you do this because of
that importance."
After several more letters and phone calls, in which we discussed
terms
for his doing such an analysis, but in which we never discussed either
of our opinions regarding the Second Amendment, gun control, or any
other political subject, Professor Copperud sent me the follow
analysis
(into which I have inserted my questions for the sake of clarity):
[Copperud:] "The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to
the
security of a free state,' contrary to the interpretation cited in
your
letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than
a
clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is
followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb
'shall'). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for
maintaining a militia.
"In reply to your numbered questions:
[Schulman:] "(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to
keep and bear arms solely to 'a well-regulated militia'?"
[Copperud:] "(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and
bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right
elsewhere
or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement
with
respect to a right of the people."
[Schulman:] "(2) Is 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms'
granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second
Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear
arms, and merely state that such right 'shall not be infringed'?"
[Copperud:] "(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its
existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right
shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia."
[Schulman:] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms
conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact
necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is
not
existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear
Arms, shall not be infringed' null and void?"
[Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right
to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the
existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the
relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a
well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state.
The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire
sentence."
[Schulman:] "(4) Does the clause 'A well-regulated Militia, being
necessary to the security of a free State,' grant a right to the
government to place conditions on the 'right of the people to keep and
bear arms,' or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of
the
entire sentence?"
[Copperud:] "(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be
unconditional,
as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of
the militia."
[Schulman:] "(5) Which of the following does the phrase
'well-regulated
militia' mean: 'well-equipped', 'well-organized,' 'well-drilled,'
'well-educated,' or 'subject to regulations of a superior authority'?"
[Copperud:] "(5) The phrase means 'subject to regulations of a
superior authority;' this accords with the desire of the writers for
civilian control over the military."
[Schulman:] "(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account
the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was
written 200 years ago, but not take into account historical
interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can
be clearly separated."
[Copperud:] "To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in
the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the
amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a
well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.'
[Schulman:] "As a 'scientific control' on this analysis, I would also
appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the
Second Amendment to the following sentence,
"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be
infringed.'
"My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,
"(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the
way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's
sentence?; and
"(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict 'the right of the
people to keep and read Books' _only_ to 'a well-educated electorate'
--
for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?"
[Copperud:] "(1) Your 'scientific control' sentence precisely
parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.
"(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or
implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation."
Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in
his cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I made some
speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was
unable to reach any conclusion."
So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage
what many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States
unconditionally protects the people's right to keep and bear arms,
forbidding all governments formed under the Constitution from
abridging that right.
As I write this, the attempted coup against constitutional government
in the Soviet Union has failed, apparently because the will of the
people in that part of the world to be free from capricious tyranny is
stronger than the old guard's desire to maintain a monopoly on
dictatorial power.
And here in the United States, elected lawmakers, judges, and
appointed officials who are pledged to defend the Constitution of the
United States ignore, marginalize, or prevaricate about the Second
Amendment routinely. American citizens are put in American prisons
for carrying arms, owning arms of forbidden sorts, or failing to
satisfy bureaucratic requirements regarding the owning and carrying of
firearms -- all of which is an abridgement of the unconditional right
of the people to keep and bear arms, guaranteed by the Constitution.
And even the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), staunch defender
of the rest of the Bill of Rights, stands by and does nothing.
it seems it is up to those who believe in the right to keep and bear
arms to preserve that right. no one else will. No one else can.
Will we beg our elected representatives not to take away our rights,
and continue regarding them as representing us if they do? Will we
continue obeying judges who decide that the Second Amendment doesn't
mean what it says it means but means whatever they say it means in
their Orwellian doublespeak? Or will be simply keep and bear the arms
of our choice, as the Constitution of the United States promises us we
can, and pledge that we will defend that promise with our lives, our
fortuned, and our sacred honor ?
(C) 1991 by The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation.
Informational reproduction of the entire article is hereby authorized
provided the author, The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation
are credited. All other rights reserved.
About the Author
J. Neil Schulman is the award-winning author of novels endorsed by
Anthony Burgess and Nobel-economist Milton Friedman, and writer of the
CBS "Twilight Zone" episode in which a time-traveling historian
prevents the JFK assassination. He's also the founder and president
of SoftServ Publishing, the first publishing company to distribute
"paperless books" via personal computers and modems.
Most recently, Schulman has founded the Committee to Enforce the
Second Amendment (CESA), through which he intends to see the
individual's right to keep and bear arms recognized as a
constitutional protection equal to those afforded in the First,
Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth amendments.
J. Neil Schulman may be reached through: The SoftServ Paperless
Bookstore, 24-hour bbs: 213-827-3160 (up to 9600 baud). Mail address:
PO Box 94, Long Beach, CA 90801-0094. GEnie address: SOFTSERV
--
RC
member NRA,SAF,GOA.
remove ".nospam" from address to email
Jeffrey C. Dege
>
>I assume that you mean during the Revolutionary War. Since the dates
>of that war were from 1775 to 1783 and Declaration of Independence was
>written in 1776 and the First Continental Congress was in 1774. That
>would put the early patriots under the control of the First
>Continental Congress until 1777 when the Articles of Confederation and
>Perpetual Union were adopted. None of them english. Does that answer
>your question? Particularly when the Constitution was written after
>that war.
The farmers at Concord were authorized by the Continental Congress? Not
hardly.
>>Which english government agent called them into duty to fight the
>>english? Wasn't it a bunch of guys with twigs in their hats that that
>>fought the revolution, without ties and blessings of their government
>>they where firing at?
>
>Nope. They had the blessing of the First Continental Congress. Did
>you sleep during that part of history in school?
No they didn't. The Congress was still arguing. Don't you remember
Patrick Henry's speech of March 23, 1775?
It is in vain, sir, to extentuate the matter. Gentlemen may
cry, Peace, Peace--but there is no peace. The war is actually begun!
The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the
clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why
stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they
have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the
price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what
course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me
death!
Congress was dragged into the war reluctantly - most of the southern
delegates were far from convinced that war was inevitable or desirable.
--
I don't believe in conspiracy theories - I have too much faith in human
stupidity.
Trouter
>
>Actually the wording of the 2nd Amendment may not be referring to a State as
>in one of the States of the United States of America at all. It can just as
>easily be read to mean the security of the state of freedom. That would be
>more in line with the intent of the Bill of Rights and as illustrated by the
>Preamble that is actually on the Bill of Rights that is on display in the
>Rotunda at the National Archives.
>
>I tend to think that the above meaning is the right one, and that cuts off
>any argument that this is an issue of the states ability to muster a
>militia. That would have been covered in each states Constitution not in
>the federal one. Also, if you compare the wording used in the 2nd
>Amendment/Article and how the term state is used in other parts of the Bill
>of Rights the way state is used there does not fit the pattern the writers
>used for it to apply to the States of the United States of America.
>
>
>--
>Thanks
>Kevin Q.
Yes, especially when you see that "state" as written in the SA is lowercase and
not "State" indicating that the writers were referring to the state of being
free and not the governmental entity "State".
Tim
Steve Hix
<kqualls@nospammersallowed_chartertn.net> wrote:
> Craig,
>
> Actually the wording of the 2nd Amendment may not be referring to a State
> as in one of the States of the United States of America at all.
Almost certainly not.
> It can just
> as easily be read to mean the security of the state of freedom. That would
> be more in line with the intent of the Bill of Rights and as illustrated by
> the Preamble that is actually on the Bill of Rights that is on display in the
> Rotunda at the National Archives.
More likely is that they were using as a normal term of art
of political theory of the time; "state" referring to a
government or nation, no matter the specific organizational
format.
--
--
Steve Hix <se...@mac.com>
Ray
> >The court ruled that a state has the right to allow any type of militia corp
> >it will, within its borders and disallow un-sanctioned corps., if not in
> >conflict with the State or Federal consitution.
>
> That's right.
>
> >But more importantly it
> >said:
>
> >It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute
> >the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well
> >as of the States, and, in view of this prerogative of the general
> >government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying
> >the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people
> >from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their
> >rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the
> >people from performing their duty to the general government.
> >- Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)
> >http://www.2ndlawlib.org/court/fed/sc/116us252.html
>
> Okay. So you tell me. What, in specific and simple terms, does that really
> _say_?
>
> If you're going to tell me that it means that the people have a general right
> to privately owned firearms completely independent of any militia-based
> legislation, then I'd suggest that the Court's expressed concerns about
> "depriv[ing] the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining
> the public security, and disabl[ing] the people from performing their duty
> to the general government" do not mesh very well with that interpretation.
>
> If you read it good and hard, you'll realize that all the Court is saying in
> this paragraph is that the states can't so thoroughly disarm people within
> their own borders that they're defying Congress' prescriptions for how the
> militia is to be armed.
RR: I'd go farther than that. What is says is that states cannot
disarm the people if and when Congress wants to use them to 'maintain
the public security.'
The flip side, of course, is that states are perfectly free to
disarm the people unless and until Congress makes that call. Only
at that point would the states be required to allow arms for
militia persons being called up.
> So long as Congress does not interfere with whatever process that is used
> to arm the militia, and it can be reasonably inferred that the process they
> prescribe does indeed provide for an effective militia force, the Second
> Amendment is not being violated. It is beyond reasonable dispute that the
> National Guard forces today are the most effective militia force that has
> ever been assembled under federal law, in terms of reliability and fitness
> to perform their duties to state and national security. Indeed, the National
> Guard could probably tackle most nations' _armies_ by themselves. That has
> pretty much _never_ been true of this country's militia forces before the
> Guard was organized in its present fashion.
RR: The only problem I have with the Perpich decision is that in confirming
the 'dual' nature of the force it ignored the Constitutional limitation on
federal use of the militia, a limitation that would appear to forbid use of
militia forces overseas.
Of course the court performs this slight of hand by saying overseas duty
militia are wearing their 'Army' hats. But since the original idea of a militia
was to try and avoid a standing army, it seems the Supreme Court, in
Perpich, pretty much ignored 'original intent.'
When further pressed on this point, the SC, in effect, threw up its
hands and said that if the governors want more control over their
'militia,' they can form another one (the 'state defense forces').
In effect, the SC was saying that as long as state defense forces
are permissable, then the states have no reason to quibble over the
small print in the Constitution....
I have interpreted this decision to mean that the 2nd Amendment
can only apply today to those people who are enrolled in State Defense
Forces and who are actively training with the private or public guns which
the amendment would protect against federal infringement.
Ray
> >> How they are armed is up to the federal
> >>government,
>
> >.......and the state government.
>
> Article I-8 is COMPLETELY clear on this: CONGRESS has the power to provide
> for how the militia is armed, and ONLY Congress. There is NO provision
> anywhere in the Constitution that gives this authority to ANYONE other than
> the federal government.
RR: Except that very early on, while many Founding Fathers were
still alive, the Supreme Court ruled that if Congress fails to properly
arm the militia, then the States can do it themselves, in whatever
way they desire:
From: Houston v. Morris, (1820) found at 5 Wheaton 1.
From the opinion of Justice Washington:
"It may be admitted, at once, that the militia belong to
the states, respectively in which they are enrolled, and
that they are subject, both in their civil and military
capacities, to the jurisdiction and laws of such state,
except so far as those laws are controlled by Acts of
Congress constitutionally made. Congress has power
to provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the
militia; and it is presumable, that the framers of the
Constitution contemplated a full exercise of these
powers. Nevertheless, if Congress had declined to
exercise them, it was competent to the state
governments to provide for organizing, arming and
disciplining their respective militia, in such manner
as they might think proper."
>
Ray
> RD,
>
> One thing to add, the state is not the only government that has historically
> had to call on the members of the militia for defense of itself. During the
> early parts of this country private citizens with their personally owned
> guns, i.e what we call the militia, was routinely called on to protect their
> town from Indians and other marauders.
RR: Those men were enrolled in an active, local-government-controlled
militia. Thus, their private arms were protected under the 2nd Amendment.
> We hope to never see it come to that
> again, but look at what happened in Los Angeles after the Rodney King
> verdict. Was not the rioters marauders and the people worked to protecting
> their own property with their personally owned firearms?
RR: Those men were NOT enrolled in an active militia. Their private
arms were NOT protected under the 2nd Amendment.
> Even though they
> were not called out by the governor, was not this act of defending peoples
> property exactly one of the duties of the militia when it comes to local
> duties?
RR: Copying the 'duties' of a legitimate militia, without the
authority of a legitimate militia, doesn't make the
copier any more legitimate.
> How quickly could the average citizen be needed to defend someone's property
> again, including their own? In the blink of an eye. There would not be
> time to go to the armory to retrieve the weapons. That is why the people of
> the United States of America has their right to keep and bear arms protected
> from infringement from the government. So we can act whenever needed for
> the protection of self, family, neighbor, and community.
RR: Only those in a well-regulated militia.
Ray
> Ray wrote in message <39653C22...@interaccess.com>...
> >kqualls wrote:
> >
> >> RD,
> >>
> >> One thing to add, the state is not the only government that has
> historically
> >> had to call on the members of the militia for defense of itself. During
> the
> >> early parts of this country private citizens with their personally owned
> >> guns, i.e what we call the militia, was routinely called on to protect
> their
> >> town from Indians and other marauders.
> >
> >RR: Those men were enrolled in an active, local-government-controlled
> >militia. Thus, their private arms were protected under the 2nd Amendment.
>
> And yet federal law prohibits military weapons (or even ones that LOOK like
> them) from those enrolled in local-government-controlled militia.
> You must fell conflicted.
RR: Not at all, because you are wrong. All federal gun
restrictions have exceptions in them for government-run
agencies (of which a state militia would be one)
Craig
Stilt Man <stil...@user2.teleport.com> wrote in message
news:8k0vhm$fc3$1...@user2.teleport.com...
> In article <rAQ85.7433$oh5.5...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> Craig <crai...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
organized a
> >"militia corp." to fight an oppressive City/State/Federal government,
they
> >would be fighting under a social contract between citizens capable of
> >bearing arms (militia) to regain the rights garunteed to them by the
> >constitution.
>
that
> there exists any private right to associate together as a military company
> independent of specific federal or state legislation authorizing the same.
> The militia is, quite simply, whatever armed force that the federal
government
federal
> government, the Second Amendment prohibits nothing more than the feds from
> using that power to _disarm_ the militia.
The court ruled that a state has the right to allow any type of militia corp
it will, within its borders and disallow un-sanctioned corps., if not in
conflict with the State or Federal consitution. But more importantly it
said:
It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute
the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well
as of the States, and, in view of this prerogative of the general
government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying
the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people
from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their
rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the
people from performing their duty to the general government.
- Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)
http://www.2ndlawlib.org/court/fed/sc/116us252.html
The reverse would also be true.
I do not deny the right of the State or Federal government the powers to
form milita corps. I am saying that the people have the RTKABA to maintain
freedom. The court ruling also touched on the right of municipailties to
form militia corps to act as peace officers. This surely gives the people
the right to band together in a milita corp under a municiple agreement, or
social contract. The only limiting factor would be determined by the states
consitiution.
> >The SA is about the peoples right to keep and bear arms. To say that it
> >grants power to the state is completely false. The reference to the word
> >"State" only speaks of the peoples right, through it's possesion of
weapons,
> >to defend a free state. There is no mention of government control.
>
> Article I, Section 8 of the original Constitution very specifically states
> that the federal government has power to provide for the organization,
> arming, and discipline of the militia, reserving to the states
respectively
> the sole appointment of the officers and the authority of training the
> militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress. Whatever
armed
> force that such provisions create IS the militia.
Let's look at the reference:
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union,
suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for
governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United
States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the
officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the
discipline prescribed by Congress;
- Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 & 16
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section1
My reading of this is that the *militia* is the citizen capable of bearing
arms and "such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United
States" consitutes the *select milita* or *milita corp.*.
> At present, that armed force is:
>
> (a) The National Guard, AND
> (b) any further state militias that any given state wishes to gather and
> equip at their own expense under their own rules.
It can also be argued that law enforcement agencies formed by communities,
and not prohibited by the states constitution, may be called an armed force
as well.
> If you are not called up into one of those two forces, the Second
Amendment
> does not today apply to you.
False, purely and simply incorect. The SA forbids the government from
disarming free citizens. It protects the citizens right to defend thier
freedom, and prevents the State or Federal governments from taking these
arms away. Because you may not be called into a miltia corp. does not mean
you are not still part of the militia, or that you are not protected under
the SA.
> >> The people are what makes up the pool of armed
> >> citizenry that the militia is drawn from.
>
> >The pool of armed citizens are the "militia".
>
> False. If the militia prescriptions of the federal government don't
provide
> for every citizen to arm themselves in preparation for militia duty, and
does
> not provide that every citizen is to consider themselves a militia member
> subject to call, then no pool of citizens without more specific membership
> in the militia than that is a militia.
Wrong again. The milita is the armed populace of citizens, the Federal and
State governments are granted the power to employee members of this milita
in a milita corp. The members of the remaining armed citizens are still in
possesion of the right to keeo and bear arms.
> In 1792, Congress chose to call such a pool a militia.
In 1792 the pool of armed citizens was called the militia. In 1886 the were
called the reserved militia.
>
> Today, they do not.
Today we are called people who have the unailienable right to keep and bear
arms.
> Neither provision violates the Second Amendment and, in fact, our militia
> forces today are a more effective fighting force than they were would have
> dreamed of in 1792.
I will agree Article I Section 8 does not violate the SA.
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> The Stilt Man stil...@teleport.com
> http://www.teleport.com/~stiltman/stiltman.html
> < We are Microsoft Borg '98. Lower your expectations and >
> < surrender your money. Antitrust law is irrelevant. >
> < Competition is irrelevant. We will add your financial and >
> < technological distinctiveness to our own. Your software >
> < will adapt to service ours. Resistance is futile. >
--
Craig
<sniped for clarity>
> >
> >Not necessarily. If the citizens of a cummunity got together and
organized a
> >"militia corp." to fight an oppressive City/State/Federal government,
they
> >would be fighting under a social contract between citizens capable of
> >bearing arms (militia) to regain the rights garunteed to them by the
> >constitution.
>
> They may call themselves a militia, but would not be legally
> recognized as one. They would be recognized as a group but if you
> showed up on city property bearing arms and using that threat as a
> lever, you would soon be a test case for the Second Amendment. :^)
I can see I have failed to prove my point again. I was not refering to the
organized milita corp. as the *milita*, but that the individuals are the
milita and would makeup the milita corp..
My argument is the term of the use militia was used differntly when the
COTUS was written. To understand the meaning of these words you must first
look at the way the word was used when the constitution was enacted. To do
otherwise would change the meaning.
I am surely not advocateing armed inserectiion. I am only saying that it is
a reserved power of the people within constitutional boundries.
<sniped for clarity>
> >The clear intent and truth of the BoR is that the Anti-Federalists
beleived
> >that the constitution should be clear on what rights are reserved to "the
> >people".
>
> And on powers of the state. The state is mentioned in both the Second
> and Tenth Amendments. This does not mean that the right of the people
> to keep and bear arms is tied in any way to that power of the state to
> use a militia for its security. RKBA and the state power to call up
> the militia are two different subjects. They simply happen to be in
> the same amendment as the power of the state to call the militia is
> dependent on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. There is
> no tie the other way around.
I still do not beleive the SA provides any State Powers.
> >They did not trust government to always stay righteous (and rightly
> >so). There would have been no agreement on the constitution with out the
> >inclusion of the BoR. The BoR is about the rights of "the people", and
has
> >been recognized many times by the SCotUS.
>
> Correct.
>
> >The SA is about the peoples right to keep and bear arms. To say that it
> >grants power to the state is completely false.
>
> It says basically that the state has the power of a well regulated
> militia to protect its security. It shows that the state does that
> through its ability to call on an armed resource of citizenry to fill
> that militia need. In order for that to work, the federal government
> cannot infringe upon the right of those citizens to keep and bear
> arms.
But the State cannot infringe on this right either.
>
> >The reference to the word
> >"State" only speaks of the peoples right, through it's possesion of
weapons,
> >to defend a free state. There is no mention of government control.
>
> Excuse me, but the word State refers to the state itself, not the
> state of mind of its citizens. :^)
But the word State, in the SA, does not explicity refer to the *government*
of the state. It can be seen as the people who defend their right to be free
from a tyranical government.
> >The pool of armed citizens are the "militia".
>
> In general yes, the militia is composed of all who are physically
> capable of working in the common defense of the state.
Agreed, and capable of working in the common defense of the United States as
well.
> It is not John
> down the street and five of his neighbors who happen to be pissed at
> the government.
Agreed.
> >Yes, but the "militia" may also be used in an insurection to fight a
> >tyranical government. Thus the true reason for the secound amendment.
>
> The actual term about insurrection is aimed directly at private armies
> calling themselves whatever and is a result of Shay's Rebellion under
> the Articles of Confederation.
>The purpose of the Second Amendment
> is to protect the state from an overreaching central government.
It is also to garuntee a milita pool for the United States. I also beleive
it protects the peoples right to fight for their own freedom. The power of
the SA is the peoples.
> The
> anti-federalists were in disfavor over a central government with more
> power than it had under the Articles.
True.
> >Peoeple have the right to defend themselves against tyranny and provide
for
> >the common defense of their freedom and rights.
> >
> >
> >(sorry, typos sometimes get in the way of meaning)
> >This should have read : "The SA does not say that citizens are to defend
the
> >enimies / of an unjust / government but speaks to the defense of / a free
/
> >nation."
>
> Say defense of / a free / state and I will agree with you.
Ok free state, but within the proper context.
> >No the SA recognizes the peoples right to keep and bear arms in defense
of a
> >free state.
>
> It does both as I have said. Even the Supreme Court has stated that
> the RKBA does not come from the Second Amendment and is not dependent
> on it for its existence.
Yes, it is not to be infringed upon.
> >Anytime a government becomes oppressive enough to warant
> >cleansing it ceases to be a government of the "free" people. The people
can
> >then take it back and reestablish it under the constitution.
>
> Correct. Although if they lose they are insurrectionists and rebels.
> It is only if they win that they become patriots. :^)
Absolutely. :)
> >The people may
> >also be called into service, by governement, to defend the constitution
and
> >soverngty of the state or country, but these powers are not addressed in
the
> >SA, only the peoples rights.
>
> Sorry, but one of them is addressed in the Second Amendment....the one
> about the sovereignty of the state or the security of the free state.
> Defense of the Constitution is covered in Article I, section 8, clause
> 15 where it states: "...execute the laws of the union...."
Again I contend that the Secound Article of the Bill of Rights pertains to
the peoples rights to be free.
> >No the "militia", as understood by the framers of the constitution, were
the
> >"People" who had the inalienable right to defend their freedom with arms.
>
> If you truly believe that the militia in the Constitution is a private
> group of guys with no reporting to the government, then take all the
> screens you need to explain Article I, section 8, clause 16.
I did not say they were a private group of guys I said they were the armed
citizens which may be called into service by the government or to defend a
free (yes, I will say it) state.
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for
governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United
States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the
officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the
discipline prescribed by Congress;
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section1
When I read this I get the distinct impression that the *militia* mentioned,
are the "citizens capable of bearing arms". Those "employed in service" are
a mitia corp. and are the ones to be governed.
> >The meaning is clear for all those who wish to see.
>
> Let me know how you feel after explaining the above. :^)
No change yet. :)
> BTW, most of what we are discussing is, as you said earlier, semantics
> with only a couple of real differences in our understanding.
I agree there are only a few differences.
>
> Sleep well tonight.....
>
> RD (Sandman)
>
> NRA Life Member: http://www.nra.org
> SAF Life Member: http://www.saf.org
> Brassroots: http://www.brassroots.org
>
> My web site: http://www.azstarnet.com/~sandman
Regards,
--
Craig Irish
Scott Miller
>Can we coin the phase "Separation of Arms and State" is guaranteed by
>the constitution by the 2nd Amendment?
It has more of an actually Constitutional basis than the "separation of church
and state" as currently interpreted does.
--Scott Miller
"If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom; and
the irony of it is that if it is comfort or money that it values more, it will
lose that too.
-- W. Somerset Maugham
Scott Miller
In article <8jj8in$poi$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>, "Bryan Vakos" <ruf...@no.spam>
wrote:
>Separation of my arms from the state, certainly. Separation of church and
>state isn't guaranteed by the Constitution though. It was taken from a
>letter written by Jefferson to a church assuring them that the government
>wouldn't interfere with their free practice of religion. Fairly soon it'll
>be illegal to pray just about everywhere except in my own home, under the
>covers, with the lights off... which coincidentally is where I have to
>go to
>smoke these days. Some separation of church and state we've got isn't it?
Yep. The government is hardly "separated" from religeon. It has made so many
establishments regarding whether you can even acknowledge religeon that the
entire meaning of the phrase has been perverted into a establishment of public
atheism.
Scott Miller
In article <pjxdOWSPcGE+Or...@4ax.com>, cguinn <no...@jose.com>
wrote:
>Why should I give a shit what Clinton thinks the intent of the 2nd is?
>
>He can't even agree on what the definition of "IS" is!!! >:-p
>
Besides, it doesn't matter what he thinks. What matters is how it was written,
and what the writers meant. Slick's opinion means zilch in this matter.
Scott Miller
In article <slrn8lqt6h...@jdege.visi.com>, jd...@jdege.visi.com (Jeffrey
C. Dege) wrote:
>States have powers, people have rights.
>
> Amendment IX
>
> The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
> construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
>
> Amendment X
>
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
> prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
> respectively, or to the people.
>
It's no wonder people can't tell the difference anymore, what with the
"Patients' Bill of Rights" and the "Airline travelers' Bill of Rights". I wish
that everyone would quit referring to those sets of rules as "rights" because,
IMHO, it greatly diminished the stark differences between the BoR and ordinary
statutes. Nobody has a "right" to health care. You have a right to seek it out
without hinderance, but it isn't as though if there isn't a doctor to see or
anyone to pick up your medical tab for you that your rights are being violated.
Stilt Man
Craig <crai...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Stilt Man <stil...@user2.teleport.com> wrote in message
>news:8k0vhm$fc3$1...@user2.teleport.com...
>> In article <rAQ85.7433$oh5.5...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>> Craig <crai...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> >Not necessarily. If the citizens of a cummunity got together and organized a
>> >"militia corp." to fight an oppressive City/State/Federal government, they
>> >would be fighting under a social contract between citizens capable of
>> >bearing arms (militia) to regain the rights garunteed to them by the
>> >constitution.
>> No. Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886) very emphatically denies that
>> there exists any private right to associate together as a military company
>> independent of specific federal or state legislation authorizing the same.
>> The militia is, quite simply, whatever armed force that the federal
>> government prescribes under their militia powers. How they are armed
>> is up to the federal government, the Second Amendment prohibits nothing
>> more than the feds from using that power to _disarm_ the militia.
>The court ruled that a state has the right to allow any type of militia corp
>it will, within its borders and disallow un-sanctioned corps., if not in
>conflict with the State or Federal consitution.
That's right.
>But more importantly it
>said:
>It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute
>the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well
>as of the States, and, in view of this prerogative of the general
>government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying
>the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people
>from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their
>rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the
>people from performing their duty to the general government.
>- Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)
>http://www.2ndlawlib.org/court/fed/sc/116us252.html
Okay. So you tell me. What, in specific and simple terms, does that really
_say_?
If you're going to tell me that it means that the people have a general right
to privately owned firearms completely independent of any militia-based
legislation, then I'd suggest that the Court's expressed concerns about
"depriv[ing] the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining
the public security, and disabl[ing] the people from performing their duty
to the general government" do not mesh very well with that interpretation.
If you read it good and hard, you'll realize that all the Court is saying in
this paragraph is that the states can't so thoroughly disarm people within
their own borders that they're defying Congress' prescriptions for how the
militia is to be armed.
>I do not deny the right of the State or Federal government the powers to
>form milita corps. I am saying that the people have the RTKABA to maintain
>freedom.
No... they don't. The Constitution goes to great lengths to define treason,
and gives Congress the power to prescribe its punishment. In addition, one
of the militia's primary duties to the federal government is to _suppress_
insurrections -- the Constitution very specifically gives Congress the power
to call them forth to do so.
It would seem rather strange to me to extrapolate a suggestion anywhere in
the Constitution that a body of armed men expected to perform that duty is
somehow also supposed to be the primary instigators of insurrection.
>The court ruling also touched on the right of municipailties to
>form militia corps to act as peace officers. This surely gives the people
>the right to band together in a milita corp under a municiple agreement, or
>social contract.
Go back and read Presser some more, and don't stop at your pet paragraph
this time:
The right voluntarily to associate together as a military com-
pany or organization or to drill or parade with arms, without, and
independent of, an act of Congress or law of the State authorizing
the same, is not an attribute of national citizenship. Military
organization and military drill and parade under arms are subjects
especially under the control of the government of every country.
They cannot be claimed as a right independent of law. Under our
political system they are subject to the regulation and control of
the State and Federal governments, acting in due regard to their
respective prerogatives and powers. The Constitution and laws of
the United States will be searched in vain for any support to the
view that these rights are privileges and immunities of citizens of
the United States independent of some specific legislation on the
subject.
>> >The SA is about the peoples right to keep and bear arms. To say that it
>> >grants power to the state is completely false. The reference to the word
>> >"State" only speaks of the peoples right, through it's possesion of weapons,
>> >to defend a free state. There is no mention of government control.
>> Article I, Section 8 of the original Constitution very specifically states
>> that the federal government has power to provide for the organization,
>> arming, and discipline of the militia, reserving to the states respectively
>> the sole appointment of the officers and the authority of training the
>> militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress. Whatever armed
>> force that such provisions create IS the militia.
>Let's look at the reference:
>To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union,
>suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
>To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for
>governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United
>States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the
>officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the
>discipline prescribed by Congress;
>- Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 & 16
>http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section1
>My reading of this is that the *militia* is the citizen capable of bearing
>arms and "such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United
>States" consitutes the *select milita* or *milita corp.*.
No. "Such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States"
means any and all members of the state militia that have been called into
federal service for the purposes given in the previous clause. It in no way
gives any general statement that EVERYONE is a militia member.
>> At present, that armed force is:
>> (a) The National Guard, AND
>> (b) any further state militias that any given state wishes to gather and
>> equip at their own expense under their own rules.
>It can also be argued that law enforcement agencies formed by communities,
>and not prohibited by the states constitution, may be called an armed force
>as well.
They are not. Law enforcement agencies are police, not militia, and they're
well-established as being seperate entities in just about every real
understanding of the law.
>> If you are not called up into one of those two forces, the Second Amendment
>> does not today apply to you.
>False, purely and simply incorect. The SA forbids the government from
>disarming free citizens. It protects the citizens right to defend thier
>freedom, and prevents the State or Federal governments from taking these
>arms away. Because you may not be called into a miltia corp. does not mean
>you are not still part of the militia, or that you are not protected under
>the SA.
There is not a single statement in this paragraph that is borne out either
under federal law or court opinions. With the sole exception of a single
district judge in northern Texas (who, in turn, is defying clear decisions
by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals over him to the contrary), every single
federal decision on the subject of the Second Amendment has been _exactly_
as I've related it to you. The case law concerning the federal government's
limits under it ultimately fall back on this paragraph from U.S. v. Miller,
307 U.S. 174 (1939):
The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress
power - "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the
Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To
provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and
for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service
of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the
Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the
Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." With
obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the
effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the
Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied
with that end in view.
Clear on this so far? The Supreme Court states here, in simple terms, that
the Second Amendment's "obvious purpose" is to prevent Congress from disarming
the militia forces that they're given power to provide for the arming of in
I-8. "It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view." If you're
not a member of those militia forces, the Second Amendment does not apply to
you.
Concerning the states, the case law falls back on this paragraph from Presser
v. Illinois:
But a conclusive answer to the
contention that this amendment prohibits the legislation in
question lies in the fact that the amendment is a limitation only
upon the power of Congress and the National government, and not
upon that of the States. It was so held by this court in the case
of United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, in which the
Chief Justice, in delivering the judgment of the court, said, that
the right of the people to keep and bear arms "is not a right
granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent
upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment
declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been
seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by
Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect
than to restrict the powers of the National government...
Clear on this one, too? If you're under state prosecution, the Second
Amendment _does_not_apply_ in any way.
>> >> The people are what makes up the pool of armed
>> >> citizenry that the militia is drawn from.
>> >The pool of armed citizens are the "militia".
>> False. If the militia prescriptions of the federal government don't provide
>> for every citizen to arm themselves in preparation for militia duty, and does
>> not provide that every citizen is to consider themselves a militia member
>> subject to call, then no pool of citizens without more specific membership
>> in the militia than that is a militia.
>Wrong again. The milita is the armed populace of citizens, the Federal and
>State governments are granted the power to employee members of this milita
>in a milita corp.
Where exactly does that definition exist, that every citizen is a member of
a well-regulated militia force? I see no such definition anywhere in the
Constitution or laws of the United States, and neither does any federal
court that's ever been presented with this argument.
>> In 1792, Congress chose to call such a pool a militia.
>In 1792 the pool of armed citizens was called the militia. In 1886 the were
>called the reserved militia.
The "reserve militia" was not and (under the term "unorganized militia" today)
is not today a militia force. For legal terms, it is the body of citizens
from which the federal government may raise and support armies, and from which
the states may draw the membership of the militia forces. There is no
federal provision for its organization, arming, or discipline, and there are
no officers for them appointed by the states or training regimens under state
authority.
>> Today, they do not.
>Today we are called people who have the unailienable right to keep and bear
>arms.
I'm sorry, you're going to have to explain the legal logic for how we got from
Point A to Point B. Perpich v. Department of Defense gives a pretty good
history of how our militia law has evolved. In 1792, the militia was indeed
constituted of otherwise private citizens who were expected to arm themselves.
Under that definition, the Second Amendment did indeed give a fairly broad
protection to such citizens to keep and bear their own arms. Today, that's
simply not how the militia is armed any more -- they're armed by a dual
enlistment system whereby they are simultaneously enlisted in the reserve
forces of the federal army, and they are armed from federal arsenals. Perpich
makes it pretty clear that one system is just as good as the other:
The second Militia Clause enhances federal power in three
additional ways. First, it authorizes Congress to provide for
"organizing, arming and disciplining the Militia." ... Over the years,
Congress has exercised this power in various ways, but its current
choice of a dual enlistment system is just as permissible as the
1792 choice to have the members of the militia arm themselves.
So long as Congress does not interfere with whatever process that is used
to arm the militia, and it can be reasonably inferred that the process they
prescribe does indeed provide for an effective militia force, the Second
Amendment is not being violated. It is beyond reasonable dispute that the
National Guard forces today are the most effective militia force that has
ever been assembled under federal law, in terms of reliability and fitness
to perform their duties to state and national security. Indeed, the National
Guard could probably tackle most nations' _armies_ by themselves. That has
pretty much _never_ been true of this country's militia forces before the
Guard was organized in its present fashion.
And, true to the Constitution's provisions, every facet of the National Guard
is dictated properly: their organization, arming, and discipline is prescribed
by Congress. Their officers are appointed by the states. They are trained
under state authority according to Congress' prescription. And Congress may
call them forth to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections, and
repel invasions. And, in perfect keeping with the Second Amendment, they are
VERY well armed.
In addition, any state who wishes to equip further militia forces may do so
at their own expense. The feds have a good enough militia force that they
don't mind letting the states have whatever else they feel that they need,
so there can be no argument that the states are, in any way, potentially
deprived of the resource of their militia forces.
Harbor no illusions that the militia was ever meant to be anything more than
that. The Constitution makes it very clear that the militia is a state
organization first, a federal resource second, and nothing more or less than
that. I defy you to find any clause in its text that suggests it was ever
meant to be anything else, or that provides for any sort of independence from
federal or state authority. Absent that, high-minded arguments that the
militia are some broad group of people regardless of what militia law says
they are fail on their surface.
RD Thompson
wrote:
>In article <rAQ85.7433$oh5.5...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>Craig <crai...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>Not necessarily. If the citizens of a cummunity got together and organized a
>>"militia corp." to fight an oppressive City/State/Federal government, they
>>would be fighting under a social contract between citizens capable of
>>bearing arms (militia) to regain the rights garunteed to them by the
>>constitution.
>
>No. Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886) very emphatically denies that
>there exists any private right to associate together as a military company
>independent of specific federal or state legislation authorizing the same.
So far, so good.
>The militia is, quite simply, whatever armed force that the federal government
>prescribes under their militia powers.
Not true. The state has the right within itself to govern its own
militia or state guard. They simply use the same recourse pool of
armed citizenry to do it. That is why the Second Amendment forbids
the federal government from infringing upon the right of those
citizens to keep and bear arms.
> How they are armed is up to the federal
>government,
.......and the state government.
>....the Second Amendment prohibits nothing more than the feds from
>using that power to _disarm_ the militia.
It prohibits the federal government from disarming the citizenry which
is the resource pool for both the federal and state usages of the
militia.
>>The SA is about the peoples right to keep and bear arms. To say that it
>>grants power to the state is completely false. The reference to the word
>>"State" only speaks of the peoples right, through it's possesion of weapons,
>>to defend a free state. There is no mention of government control.
>
>Article I, Section 8 of the original Constitution very specifically states
>that the federal government has power to provide for the organization,
>arming, and discipline of the militia, reserving to the states respectively
>the sole appointment of the officers and the authority of training the
>militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress. Whatever armed
>force that such provisions create IS the militia.
Correct for the federal usages of the militia as shown in Article I,
section 8, clause 15.
>At present, that armed force is:
>
>(a) The National Guard, AND
>(b) any further state militias that any given state wishes to gather and
>equip at their own expense under their own rules.
And the unorganized militia who is everybody else between 17 and 45
years of age.
>If you are not called up into one of those two [three] forces, the Second Amendment
>does not today apply to you.
Part of it does. It is a two fold amendment. Part of it addresses
the power of the state to use the militia to secure its freedom from
an overreaching central government and the second part of it
reiterates the right of the people to keep and bear arms so that they
may be used by the state in that militia.
>>> The people are what makes up the pool of armed
>>> citizenry that the militia is drawn from.
>
>>The pool of armed citizens are the "militia".
>
>False. If the militia prescriptions of the federal government don't provide
>for every citizen to arm themselves in preparation for militia duty, and does
>not provide that every citizen is to consider themselves a militia member
>subject to call, then no pool of citizens without more specific membership
>in the militia than that is a militia.
10 Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males
at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of
title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and
of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.
Sleep well tonight.....
RD (Sandman)
NRA Life Member: http://www.nra.org
SAF Life Member: http://www.saf.org
Brassroots: http://www.brassroots.org
My web site: http://www.azstarnet.com/~sandman
The widest gap between liberals and conservatives is the blank space
RD Thompson
of Wisdom) wrote:
>On Tue, 04 Jul 2000 19:57:03 -0700, RD Thompson
><san...@azstarnet.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 04 Jul 2000 03:09:46 GMT, "Craig" <crai...@worldnet.att.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>RD Thompson <san...@azstarnet.com> wrote in message
>>>news:q0a2msguljjos5rqv...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Mon, 03 Jul 2000 00:23:35 GMT, "Craig" <crai...@worldnet.att.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> >RD Thompson <san...@azstarnet.com> wrote in message
>>>> >news:q9evlscf9qnoal0ls...@4ax.com...
>>>> >> On Sat, 01 Jul 2000 02:14:46 GMT, "Craig" <crai...@worldnet.att.net>
>>>> >> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> >The word "militia" means "the people" or the individual.
>>>
>(snip)
>>
>>>The Second
>>>Amendment clearly addresses the peoples right (militas right) to keep and
>>>bear arms uninfringed.
>>
>>No, it doesn't.
>
>Yes it does.
Please learn to read the thought that is being stated before you
answer. It will save you embarrassment from time to time. I
corrected his comment that RKBA was the [militas right]. It is the
right of the people. Something you would have seen had you read
further before you answered. You simply wasted a lot of bandwidth to
quote something that I already have read and mostly agreed with.
>> It clearly addresses the power of the state to use
>>militias to protect itself from an overreaching central government
>>*AND* it recognizes the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>Two separate things. The people are what makes up the pool of armed
>>citizenry that the militia is drawn from.
>>
This is the part you did not read prior to your kneejerk response.
RD Thompson
Dege) wrote:
>On Wed, 05 Jul 2000 21:19:46 -0700, RD Thompson <san...@azstarnet.com> wrote:
>>
>>I assume that you mean during the Revolutionary War. Since the dates
>>of that war were from 1775 to 1783 and Declaration of Independence was
>>written in 1776 and the First Continental Congress was in 1774. That
>>would put the early patriots under the control of the First
>>Continental Congress until 1777 when the Articles of Confederation and
>>Perpetual Union were adopted. None of them english. Does that answer
>>your question? Particularly when the Constitution was written after
>>that war.
>
>The farmers at Concord were authorized by the Continental Congress? Not
>hardly.
The early patriots in the Revolutionary War were under the aegis of
the First Continental Congress and the Articles of Confederation not
the Constitution which was written *after* the War.
>>>Which english government agent called them into duty to fight the
>>>english? Wasn't it a bunch of guys with twigs in their hats that that
>>>fought the revolution, without ties and blessings of their government
>>>they where firing at?
>>
>>Nope. They had the blessing of the First Continental Congress. Did
>>you sleep during that part of history in school?
>
>No they didn't. The Congress was still arguing. Don't you remember
>Patrick Henry's speech of March 23, 1775?
Sure, but they were not called up by the english (see above), the
Constitution and the union as we know it did not exist then. The
point (in the parts that are no longer quoted in this thread) was that
militias per the Constitution report to the government at some level
and are not run as private armies by some twit listening to his Rice
Krispies.
> It is in vain, sir, to extentuate the matter. Gentlemen may
> cry, Peace, Peace--but there is no peace. The war is actually begun!
> The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the
> clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why
> stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they
> have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the
> price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what
> course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me
> death!
>
>Congress was dragged into the war reluctantly - most of the southern
>delegates were far from convinced that war was inevitable or desirable.
Actually, the country was in three groups. About a third wished to
break off from England, about a third wished to remain as English
subjects and the rest gid not give a shit one way or the other as long
as they could make money in the new land.
The point was that militias (as they are referred to in the
Constitution) are not private little armies completely and only
controlled by some dude with a funny hat who likes to camp out on
weekends, shoot paintguns and hates the government.
RD Thompson
wrote:
>
>RD Thompson <san...@azstarnet.com> wrote in message
>news:2d28mssb64celocqd...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 06 Jul 2000 00:40:55 GMT, "Craig" <crai...@worldnet.att.net>
>> wrote:
>
><sniped for clarity>
>
>> >
>> >Not necessarily. If the citizens of a cummunity got together and
>organized a
>> >"militia corp." to fight an oppressive City/State/Federal government,
>they
>> >would be fighting under a social contract between citizens capable of
>> >bearing arms (militia) to regain the rights garunteed to them by the
>> >constitution.
>>
>> They may call themselves a militia, but would not be legally
>> recognized as one. They would be recognized as a group but if you
>> showed up on city property bearing arms and using that threat as a
>> lever, you would soon be a test case for the Second Amendment. :^)
>
>I can see I have failed to prove my point again.
Or I failed to grasp it. :^)
> I was not refering to the
>organized milita corp. as the *milita*, but that the individuals are the
>milita and would makeup the milita corp..
OK
>My argument is the term of the use militia was used differntly when the
>COTUS was written. To understand the meaning of these words you must first
>look at the way the word was used when the constitution was enacted. To do
>otherwise would change the meaning.
Yes, however you also mentioned the Constitution and what I am giving
you is the way the militia was looked at in the Constitution. It
reported to federal government when called by them and it reported to
the state governments when called into service by them. Members of
the militia got to wear three hats. One, their civilian hat that they
wore as they went about their business from day to day, their state
hat which they would have worn under the Second Amendment when called
out and their federal hat which they would have worn when called up by
the feds to repel invaders, suppress insurrections, and execute the
laws of the union,
>I am surely not advocateing armed inserectiion. I am only saying that it is
>a reserved power of the people within constitutional boundries.
Yes, but not under the Second Amendment or the definition of militia.
Of course, if they win, they can call themselves anything they wish.
:^)
><sniped for clarity>
>
>> >The clear intent and truth of the BoR is that the Anti-Federalists
>beleived
>> >that the constitution should be clear on what rights are reserved to "the
>> >people".
>>
>> And on powers of the state. The state is mentioned in both the Second
>> and Tenth Amendments. This does not mean that the right of the people
>> to keep and bear arms is tied in any way to that power of the state to
>> use a militia for its security. RKBA and the state power to call up
>> the militia are two different subjects. They simply happen to be in
>> the same amendment as the power of the state to call the militia is
>> dependent on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. There is
>> no tie the other way around.
>
>I still do not beleive the SA provides any State Powers.
The anti-federalists (who were responsible for the Bill of Rights)
were very concerned about the power of the central government. They
did not particularly want one that had more power than it had under
the Articles of Confederation so they wished to put some checks on it.
The federalists argued that there was no need for the BoR as all those
things were understood. (I would bet that Clinton and Sarah Brady
wished the federalists had won the argument.)
Sleep well tonight.....
RD (Sandman)
NRA Life Member: http://www.nra.org
SAF Life Member: http://www.saf.org
Brassroots: http://www.brassroots.org
My web site: http://www.azstarnet.com/~sandman
The widest gap between liberals and conservatives is the blank space
Stilt Man
RD Thompson <[REMOVE THIS]san...@azstarnet.com> wrote:
>On 5 Jul 2000 20:48:06 -0700, stil...@user2.teleport.com (Stilt Man)
>wrote:
>>In article <rAQ85.7433$oh5.5...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>>Craig <crai...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>Not necessarily. If the citizens of a cummunity got together and organized a
>>>"militia corp." to fight an oppressive City/State/Federal government, they
>>>would be fighting under a social contract between citizens capable of
>>>bearing arms (militia) to regain the rights garunteed to them by the
>>>constitution.
>>No. Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886) very emphatically denies that
>>there exists any private right to associate together as a military company
>>independent of specific federal or state legislation authorizing the same.
>So far, so good.
Good. :)
>>The militia is, quite simply, whatever armed force that the federal government
>>prescribes under their militia powers.
>Not true. The state has the right within itself to govern its own
>militia or state guard. They simply use the same recourse pool of
>armed citizenry to do it. That is why the Second Amendment forbids
>the federal government from infringing upon the right of those
>citizens to keep and bear arms.
They have the right to _govern_ it, via their sole authority of appointment
of the officers and of training the militia according to the discipline
prescribed by Congress.
Their right to collect militia forces and what not is limited by the
prescriptions of Congress. They are _not_ permitted to organize any more
military forces in peacetime other than what Congress prescribes by militia
law.
At present, that's not a big deal; Congress has given blanket permission for
the states to organize whatever state militias they like at their own expense.
>> How they are armed is up to the federal
>>government,
>.......and the state government.
Article I-8 is COMPLETELY clear on this: CONGRESS has the power to provide
for how the militia is armed, and ONLY Congress. There is NO provision
anywhere in the Constitution that gives this authority to ANYONE other than
the federal government.
>>....the Second Amendment prohibits nothing more than the feds from
>>using that power to _disarm_ the militia.
>It prohibits the federal government from disarming the citizenry which
>is the resource pool for both the federal and state usages of the
>militia.
No, it prohibits the federal government from disarming the militia itself.
If the militia itself is armed from privately held arms, then the effect
you describe is, in truth, the practical effect of the Second Amendment.
Today, the militia is _not_ armed from privately held arms, and as a result
the Second Amendment has no bearing on them.
[Militia forces organized under Article I-8 of the Constitution]
>>At present, that armed force is:
>>(a) The National Guard, AND
>>(b) any further state militias that any given state wishes to gather and
>>equip at their own expense under their own rules.
>And the unorganized militia who is everybody else between 17 and 45
>years of age.
No. The unorganized militia is not an armed force. No judicial or executive
authority that I'm aware of considers it to be an armed force. It's a semantic
construction only.
>>>> The people are what makes up the pool of armed
>>>> citizenry that the militia is drawn from.
>>>The pool of armed citizens are the "militia".
>>False. If the militia prescriptions of the federal government don't provide
>>for every citizen to arm themselves in preparation for militia duty, and does
>>not provide that every citizen is to consider themselves a militia member
>>subject to call, then no pool of citizens without more specific membership
>>in the militia than that is a militia.
>10 Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes
>(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males
>at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of
>title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
>declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and
>of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
>National Guard.
>(b) The classes of the militia are -
>(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
>and the Naval Militia; and
>(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
>the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
>Naval Militia.
All right. So where in this does the U.S. code provide that the militia is
to arm itself?
I see that provision nowhere in the text you describe. I see only the
semantic constructions of what constitutes the "militia", with no context
whatsoever established as to what part of that semantic construction is
actually an armed force that has any bearing on national or state security.
kqualls
One thing to add, the state is not the only government that has historically
had to call on the members of the militia for defense of itself. During the
early parts of this country private citizens with their personally owned
guns, i.e what we call the militia, was routinely called on to protect their
town from Indians and other marauders. We hope to never see it come to that
again, but look at what happened in Los Angeles after the Rodney King
verdict. Was not the rioters marauders and the people worked to protecting
their own property with their personally owned firearms? Even though they
were not called out by the governor, was not this act of defending peoples
property exactly one of the duties of the militia when it comes to local
duties?
How quickly could the average citizen be needed to defend someone's property
again, including their own? In the blink of an eye. There would not be
time to go to the armory to retrieve the weapons. That is why the people of
the United States of America has their right to keep and bear arms protected
from infringement from the government. So we can act whenever needed for
the protection of self, family, neighbor, and community.
--
Thanks
Kevin Q.
kqu...@chartertn.net - Regular Email
kwqu...@hotmail.com - NRA / Pro-gun related email
NRA-ILA Election Volunteer Coordinator - 1st District Tennessee
"RD Thompson" <san...@azstarnet.com> wrote in message
news:ne9cmsovv8bujso9p...@4ax.com...
Scot
Craig wrote:
>
> RD Thompson <san...@azstarnet.com> wrote in message
> news:kuacmscmi4sfsmepp...@4ax.com...
> > On Fri, 07 Jul 2000 04:58:43 GMT, "Craig" <crai...@worldnet.att.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > >My argument is the term of the use militia was used differntly when the
> > >COTUS was written. To understand the meaning of these words you must
> first
> > >look at the way the word was used when the constitution was enacted. To
> do
> > >otherwise would change the meaning.
> >
> > Yes, however you also mentioned the Constitution and what I am giving
> > you is the way the militia was looked at in the Constitution. It
> > reported to federal government when called by them and it reported to
> > the state governments when called into service by them. Members of
> > the militia got to wear three hats. One, their civilian hat that they
> > wore as they went about their business from day to day, their state
> > hat which they would have worn under the Second Amendment when called
> > out and their federal hat which they would have worn when called up by
> > the feds to repel invaders, suppress insurrections, and execute the
> > laws of the union,
>
> > The anti-federalists (who were responsible for the Bill of Rights)
> > were very concerned about the power of the central government. They
> > did not particularly want one that had more power than it had under
> > the Articles of Confederation so they wished to put some checks on it.
> > The federalists argued that there was no need for the BoR as all those
> > things were understood. (I would bet that Clinton and Sarah Brady
> > wished the federalists had won the argument.)
>
> Your argument is well made. The milita can be defined in three ways but
> considered a milita in any one of the contexts. My argument was limiting
> them to one role only. I will accept that I was wrong to seek such a narrow
> definition.
>
> So you are saying that the State has the power to form militas because it is
> granted in the Secound Amendment?
No, states have the power to form militias because that power is
recognized in the body of the Constitution:
Article I, Section 8: The Congress shall have the Power...
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the
Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and
for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the
United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of
the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the
discipline prescribed by Congress;
>
> > (I would bet that Clinton and Sarah Brady wished the federalists had won
> the argument.)
>
> Yes that would make it very convient for those the kind of people that would
> limit our every activity or thought.
>
> > Sleep well tonight.....
> >
> > RD (Sandman)
> >
> > NRA Life Member: http://www.nra.org
> > SAF Life Member: http://www.saf.org
> > Brassroots: http://www.brassroots.org
> >
> > My web site: http://www.azstarnet.com/~sandman
>
> Regards,
> Craig Irish
Randy Sweeney
Ray wrote in message <39653AC5...@interaccess.com>...
>RR: Except that very early on, while many Founding Fathers were
>still alive, the Supreme Court ruled that if Congress fails to properly
>arm the militia, then the States can do it themselves, in whatever
>way they desire:
So Ray, so my state wants me to be armed and has a constitutional clause
which says that I can be armed to protect both myself and the state.
You saying that the federal infringements upon that right are null and void?
Randy Sweeney
>>
>> One thing to add, the state is not the only government that has
historically
>> had to call on the members of the militia for defense of itself. During
the
>> early parts of this country private citizens with their personally owned
>> guns, i.e what we call the militia, was routinely called on to protect
their
>> town from Indians and other marauders.
>
Randy Sweeney
Randy Sweeney wrote in message ...
>You must fell conflicted.
make that "feel"
Craig
> On Fri, 07 Jul 2000 04:58:43 GMT, "Craig" <crai...@worldnet.att.net>
> wrote:
> >My argument is the term of the use militia was used differntly when the
> >COTUS was written. To understand the meaning of these words you must
first
> >look at the way the word was used when the constitution was enacted. To
do
> >otherwise would change the meaning.
>
> Yes, however you also mentioned the Constitution and what I am giving
> you is the way the militia was looked at in the Constitution. It
> reported to federal government when called by them and it reported to
> the state governments when called into service by them. Members of
> the militia got to wear three hats. One, their civilian hat that they
> wore as they went about their business from day to day, their state
> hat which they would have worn under the Second Amendment when called
> out and their federal hat which they would have worn when called up by
> the feds to repel invaders, suppress insurrections, and execute the
> laws of the union,
> The anti-federalists (who were responsible for the Bill of Rights)
> were very concerned about the power of the central government. They
> did not particularly want one that had more power than it had under
> the Articles of Confederation so they wished to put some checks on it.
> The federalists argued that there was no need for the BoR as all those
> things were understood. (I would bet that Clinton and Sarah Brady
> wished the federalists had won the argument.)
Your argument is well made. The milita can be defined in three ways but
considered a milita in any one of the contexts. My argument was limiting
them to one role only. I will accept that I was wrong to seek such a narrow
definition.
So you are saying that the State has the power to form militas because it is
granted in the Secound Amendment?
> (I would bet that Clinton and Sarah Brady wished the federalists had won
the argument.)
Yes that would make it very convient for those the kind of people that would
limit our every activity or thought.
> Sleep well tonight.....
>
> RD (Sandman)
>
> NRA Life Member: http://www.nra.org
> SAF Life Member: http://www.saf.org
> Brassroots: http://www.brassroots.org
>
> My web site: http://www.azstarnet.com/~sandman
Regards,
Craig Irish
Scott Miller
In article <3962058B...@flash.net>, phls...@flash.net wrote:
>msm...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>> In article <slq016...@corp.supernews.com>,
>> rede...@trial.freedom.net wrote:
>>
>> > effectively this:
>> >
>> > "A well government regulated people, being necessary to the peace and
>> > preservation of a federal government, the right of the federal
>> > govenment to regulate and control arms, shall not be infringed."
>>
>> That's not true.
>>
>> There are an awful lot of gun grabbers who THINK that this is what
>> it means. However, the Emerson case is likely to shock them, once
>> the courts rule in favor of gun rights.
>>
>
>Guns do not have rights, despite what you fanatics think.
Guns do not kill people, despite what you fanatics think.
kqualls
Actually you are totally wrong on the second amendment only protecting the
arms of those who are enrolled in a militia. The term that conveys the
protection of the right in the 2nd Article of the Bill of Rights (2nd
Amendment) says '...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not
be infringed." That is the part that says who the right belongs to, the
people, and not to the states. The people that are referred to here is the
same as in other Articles of the Bill of Rights and recent supreme court
decisions have said exactly that, even though they were not dealing directly
with the 2nd Article/Amendment.
The opening phrases (A well regulated militia being necessary to the
security of a free state,) does not alter who the right belongs to at all.
It only sets one of the reasons for wanting to protect the right to keep and
bear arms. But it is not a limiting factor in who can exercise this right
to keep and bear arms.
--
Thanks
Kevin Q.
kqu...@chartertn.net - Regular Email
kwqu...@hotmail.com - NRA / Pro-gun related email
NRA-ILA Election Volunteer Coordinator - 1st District Tennessee
"Ray" <ki...@interaccess.com> wrote in message
news:39653C22...@interaccess.com...
> kqualls wrote:
>
> > RD,
> >
> > One thing to add, the state is not the only government that has
historically
> > had to call on the members of the militia for defense of itself. During
the
> > early parts of this country private citizens with their personally owned
> > guns, i.e what we call the militia, was routinely called on to protect
their
> > town from Indians and other marauders.
>
> RR: Those men were enrolled in an active, local-government-controlled
> militia. Thus, their private arms were protected under the 2nd Amendment.
>
> > We hope to never see it come to that
> > again, but look at what happened in Los Angeles after the Rodney King
> > verdict. Was not the rioters marauders and the people worked to
protecting
> > their own property with their personally owned firearms?
>
> RR: Those men were NOT enrolled in an active militia. Their private
> arms were NOT protected under the 2nd Amendment.
>
> > Even though they
> > were not called out by the governor, was not this act of defending
peoples
> > property exactly one of the duties of the militia when it comes to local
> > duties?
>
> RR: Copying the 'duties' of a legitimate militia, without the
> authority of a legitimate militia, doesn't make the
> copier any more legitimate.
>
> > How quickly could the average citizen be needed to defend someone's
property
> > again, including their own? In the blink of an eye. There would not be
> > time to go to the armory to retrieve the weapons. That is why the
people of
> > the United States of America has their right to keep and bear arms
protected
> > from infringement from the government. So we can act whenever needed
for
> > the protection of self, family, neighbor, and community.
>
kqualls
Actually fell is the better word here. Your argument fell flat on it's face
because of the conflict between what you posted and what the current law
actually is.
Also, how does the unorganized militia play into your scenario since by the
virtue of them being unorganized they would not be on the rolls anywhere,
and yet they are required to be ready to bring forth their personally owned
arms in the time of need. Just like the cowboys did in the old west, and
the shopkeepers did in the Rodney King Riots in L.A. Or are you going to
tell me that Cowboys who roamed the plains from territory to territory in
the old west reported to the county or city militia office very time they
came into a new area to enroll in that areas militia roll so they could keep
their guns?
--
Thanks
Kevin Q.
kqu...@chartertn.net - Regular Email
kwqu...@hotmail.com - NRA / Pro-gun related email
NRA-ILA Election Volunteer Coordinator - 1st District Tennessee
"Randy Sweeney" <rswe...@Home.com> wrote in message
news:Nfw95.14367$661.2...@news1.rdc1.va.home.com...
Seeker of Wisdom
wrote:
>
>In article <8jj8in$poi$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>, "Bryan Vakos" <ruf...@no.spam>
>wrote:
>
>>Separation of my arms from the state, certainly. Separation of church and
>>state isn't guaranteed by the Constitution though. It was taken from a
>>letter written by Jefferson to a church assuring them that the government
>>wouldn't interfere with their free practice of religion. Fairly soon it'll
>>be illegal to pray just about everywhere except in my own home, under the
>>covers, with the lights off... which coincidentally is where I have to
>>go to
>>smoke these days. Some separation of church and state we've got isn't it?
>
>Yep. The government is hardly "separated" from religeon. It has made so many
>establishments regarding whether you can even acknowledge religeon that the
>entire meaning of the phrase has been perverted into a establishment of public
>atheism.
>
>
>--Scott Miller
>
>
>"If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom; and
>the irony of it is that if it is comfort or money that it values more, it will
>lose that too.
>-- W. Somerset Maugham
That's true. It's ironic that the what we have is exactly what the
founders did not want. Government established and promoted religion.
The religion is as you said atheism. Those wise dead white guys are
surely rolling in their graves at the sight of what the twisted
liberal agenda has given us. They have some how substituted the
word "from" in place of the word "of" in the first amendment and no
one noticed until it was too late.
RC
RC
member NRA,SAF,GOA.
remove ".nospam" from address to email
Seeker of Wisdom
<san...@azstarnet.com> wrote:
(snip to save bandwidth <g>)
>>>No, it doesn't.
>>
>>Yes it does.
>
You had disagreed with Craig and I was simply taking his side in the
discussion. It seemed to me that he was getting it right or at the
very least making his point more clearly.
>Please learn to read the thought that is being stated before you
>answer. It will save you embarrassment from time to time. I
>corrected his comment that RKBA was the [militas right]. It is the
>right of the people. Something you would have seen had you read
>further before you answered. You simply wasted a lot of bandwidth to
>quote something that I already have read and mostly agreed with.
>
Then perhaps you could make it more clear for those of us with the
jerky knees. <g>
>>> It clearly addresses the power of the state to use
>>>militias to protect itself from an overreaching central government
>>>*AND* it recognizes the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
I agree.
>>>Two separate things. The people are what makes up the pool of armed
>>>citizenry that the militia is drawn from.
>>>
>This is the part you did not read prior to your kneejerk response.
> ^^^^^^^
Oooh! a buzz word.
>
>Sleep well tonight.....
I will.
>
>RD (Sandman)
(snip more for bandwidth)
Perhaps we are closer in understanding the SA then I thought at first.
Carry on,
Randy Sweeney
The second amendment and the state constitutions which preceeded it
unequivically guarantee the right of the citizens to both possess and use
their firearms.
The militia is a construct drawn from the armed citizens and in no way is
militia activity required to "validate" the citizen's right to keep and bear
arms.
Ray is the one who is conflicted, for he supports both the power of the
government to infringe on the people's right to be armed as well as believes
that the government can not infringe on the right of the active militia.
kqualls wrote in message <3966b...@news.chartertn.net>...
>Randy,
>
>Actually fell is the better word here. Your argument fell flat on it's
face
>because of the conflict between what you posted and what the current law
>actually is.
>
>Also, how does the unorganized militia play into your scenario since by the
>virtue of them being unorganized they would not be on the rolls anywhere,
>and yet they are required to be ready to bring forth their personally owned
>arms in the time of need. Just like the cowboys did in the old west, and
>the shopkeepers did in the Rodney King Riots in L.A. Or are you going to
>tell me that Cowboys who roamed the plains from territory to territory in
>the old west reported to the county or city militia office very time they
>came into a new area to enroll in that areas militia roll so they could
keep
>their guns?
>
>
>--
>Thanks
>Kevin Q.
>kqu...@chartertn.net - Regular Email
>kwqu...@hotmail.com - NRA / Pro-gun related email
>NRA-ILA Election Volunteer Coordinator - 1st District Tennessee
>
>
Johnny Johnson
>In article <rAQ85.7433$oh5.5...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>Craig <crai...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
[snip]
>>> The people are what makes up the pool of armed
>>> citizenry that the militia is drawn from.
>>
>>The pool of armed citizens are the "militia".
>
>False. If the militia prescriptions of the federal government don't provide
>for every citizen to arm themselves in preparation for militia duty, and does
>not provide that every citizen is to consider themselves a militia member
>subject to call, then no pool of citizens without more specific membership
>in the militia than that is a militia.
"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people
themselves. ... All regulations tending to render this
militia useless and defenseless, by establishing select
corps of militia or distinct bodies of military men not
having permanent interests and attachments in the community
(are) to be avoided. ... To preserve liberty, it is essential
that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and
be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
--Richard Henry Lee (of Virginia), drafter the Second
Amendment (along with the rest of the Bill of Rights)
--
--Johnny Johnson
aka
JohnJ...@juno.com
RD Thompson
>kqualls wrote:
>
>> RD,
>>
>> One thing to add, the state is not the only government that has historically
>> had to call on the members of the militia for defense of itself. During the
>> early parts of this country private citizens with their personally owned
>> guns, i.e what we call the militia, was routinely called on to protect their
>> town from Indians and other marauders.
>
>RR: Those men were enrolled in an active, local-government-controlled
>militia. Thus, their private arms were protected under the 2nd Amendment.
And the right to keep and bear arms.
>> We hope to never see it come to that
>> again, but look at what happened in Los Angeles after the Rodney King
>> verdict. Was not the rioters marauders and the people worked to protecting
>> their own property with their personally owned firearms?
>
>RR: Those men were NOT enrolled in an active militia. Their private
>arms were NOT protected under the 2nd Amendment.
but were still protected under the right to keep and bear arms.
>> Even though they
>> were not called out by the governor, was not this act of defending peoples
>> property exactly one of the duties of the militia when it comes to local
>> duties?
>
>RR: Copying the 'duties' of a legitimate militia, without the
>authority of a legitimate militia, doesn't make the
>copier any more legitimate.
>
>> How quickly could the average citizen be needed to defend someone's property
>> again, including their own? In the blink of an eye. There would not be
>> time to go to the armory to retrieve the weapons. That is why the people of
>> the United States of America has their right to keep and bear arms protected
>> from infringement from the government. So we can act whenever needed for
>> the protection of self, family, neighbor, and community.
>
>RR: Only those in a well-regulated militia.
Bullshit.
RD Thompson
wrote:
And to use members of the militia pool in their state guards.
>Their right to collect militia forces and what not is limited by the
>prescriptions of Congress. They are _not_ permitted to organize any more
>military forces in peacetime other than what Congress prescribes by militia
>law.
Of course, that is because no state may have a standing army. That is
the why for the militia in the first place.
>At present, that's not a big deal; Congress has given blanket permission for
>the states to organize whatever state militias they like at their own expense.
They have had that right for a long time. For example, it is part of
Arizona's constitution.
>>> How they are armed is up to the federal
>>>government,
>
>>.......and the state government.
>
>Article I-8 is COMPLETELY clear on this: CONGRESS has the power to provide
>for how the militia is armed, and ONLY Congress. There is NO provision
>anywhere in the Constitution that gives this authority to ANYONE other than
>the federal government.
That is for the federal use of the militia. Remember that the
Constitution (where the part about Congress is) was written in the
months before its ratification in 1789. The Second Amendment was
ratified in 1791. Two years later.
>>>....the Second Amendment prohibits nothing more than the feds from
>>>using that power to _disarm_ the militia.
>
>>It prohibits the federal government from disarming the citizenry which
>>is the resource pool for both the federal and state usages of the
>>militia.
>
>No, it prohibits the federal government from disarming the militia itself.
>If the militia itself is armed from privately held arms, then the effect
>you describe is, in truth, the practical effect of the Second Amendment.
>Today, the militia is _not_ armed from privately held arms, and as a result
>the Second Amendment has no bearing on them.
Hmmm, it historically is according to Miller and that was in 1939.
>[Militia forces organized under Article I-8 of the Constitution]
>
>>>At present, that armed force is:
>
>>>(a) The National Guard, AND
>>>(b) any further state militias that any given state wishes to gather and
>>>equip at their own expense under their own rules.
>
>>And the unorganized militia who is everybody else between 17 and 45
>>years of age.
>
>No. The unorganized militia is not an armed force.
You are the one who claimed it to be an armed force. See your comment
above. I would suggest that you feed that rascal. I only stated that
the militia is composed of three parts. The National Guard, the state
guards in those states that have them and the unorganized militia.
>No judicial or executive
>authority that I'm aware of considers it to be an armed force. It's a semantic
>construction only.
See above
To what purpose do you suppose 10 USC 311 was written for? :^)
RD Thompson
<kqualls@nospammersallowed_chartertn.net> wrote:
>RD,
>
>One thing to add, the state is not the only government that has historically
>had to call on the members of the militia for defense of itself. During the
>early parts of this country private citizens with their personally owned
>guns, i.e what we call the militia, was routinely called on to protect their
>town from Indians and other marauders.
Yes, they were called into action by their local governments.
> We hope to never see it come to that
>again, but look at what happened in Los Angeles after the Rodney King
>verdict. Was not the rioters marauders and the people worked to protecting
>their own property with their personally owned firearms? Even though they
>were not called out by the governor, was not this act of defending peoples
>property exactly one of the duties of the militia when it comes to local
>duties?
Yes, however they were not a militia as referred to in the
Constitution. They were a citizen force that banded together to
protect their common interest. None of them defended any shops or
territories outside of their own immediate interest.
>How quickly could the average citizen be needed to defend someone's property
>again, including their own? In the blink of an eye. There would not be
>time to go to the armory to retrieve the weapons. That is why the people of
>the United States of America has their right to keep and bear arms protected
>from infringement from the government.
That is why we have the right to keep and bear arms, but self defense
or defense of personal property is not covered under the Second
Amendment.
>So we can act whenever needed for
>the protection of self, family, neighbor, and community.
The Second Amendment only covers the protection of the state and uses
that as one reason why the feds cannot screw with the right of the
people to keep and bear arms. It does not consider self defense as
even the anti-federalists agreed that that would be understood.
RD Thompson
wrote:
No, I would refer to it as a reminder that the states intended to
retain that power and not give it solely to the federal government
under Article I. I do not believe that the BoR grants any rights, it
simply forces the federal government to recognize them.
RD Thompson
of Wisdom) wrote:
>On Fri, 07 Jul 2000 12:01:56 -0700, RD Thompson
><san...@azstarnet.com> wrote:
>
>(snip to save bandwidth <g>)
>>>>No, it doesn't.
>>>
>>>Yes it does.
>>
>You had disagreed with Craig and I was simply taking his side in the
>discussion. It seemed to me that he was getting it right or at the
>very least making his point more clearly.
Not a problem. I have had problems with my own clarity before. :^)
>>Please learn to read the thought that is being stated before you
>>answer. It will save you embarrassment from time to time. I
>>corrected his comment that RKBA was the [militas right]. It is the
>>right of the people. Something you would have seen had you read
>>further before you answered. You simply wasted a lot of bandwidth to
>>quote something that I already have read and mostly agreed with.
>>
>
>Then perhaps you could make it more clear for those of us with the
>jerky knees. <g>
Including myself, apparently. :^)
Scout
> >
> > One thing to add, the state is not the only government that has
historically
> > had to call on the members of the militia for defense of itself. During
the
> > early parts of this country private citizens with their personally owned
> > guns, i.e what we call the militia, was routinely called on to protect
their
> > town from Indians and other marauders.
>
> militia. Thus, their private arms were protected under the 2nd Amendment.
Which is interesting since Ray is on record as telling an enrolled member of
an active, local-government controlled militia that his private arms are not
protected under the 2nd.
Seems Ray is in a bit of a contradiction here.
Scout
> Randy Sweeney wrote:
>
> > Ray wrote in message <39653C22...@interaccess.com>...
> > >kqualls wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> One thing to add, the state is not the only government that has
> > historically
> > >> had to call on the members of the militia for defense of itself.
During
> > the
> > >> early parts of this country private citizens with their personally
owned
> > >> guns, i.e what we call the militia, was routinely called on to
protect
> > their
> > >> town from Indians and other marauders.
> > >
> > >militia. Thus, their private arms were protected under the 2nd
Amendment.
> >
like
> > them) from those enrolled in local-government-controlled militia.
> > You must fell conflicted.
>
> restrictions have exceptions in them for government-run
> agencies (of which a state militia would be one)
So the private arms of an individual now counts as the property of a
government-run agency simply because they are a member/employee?
Where exactly is this set forth in the law?
Craig
Stilt Man <stil...@user2.teleport.com> wrote in message
news:8k5113$7m6$1...@user2.teleport.com...
> In article <fZb95.9069$oh5.6...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> Craig <crai...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms
constitute
> >the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as
well
> >as of the States, and, in view of this prerogative of the general
> >government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even
laying
> >the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people
> >from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of
their
> >rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the
> >people from performing their duty to the general government.
> >- Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)
> >http://www.2ndlawlib.org/court/fed/sc/116us252.html
>
> Okay. So you tell me. What, in specific and simple terms, does that
really
> _say_?
The court is saying that the State cannot deny the peoples right to keep and
bear arms. Federal Government is already barred from this.
> If you read it good and hard, you'll realize that all the Court is saying
in
> this paragraph is that the states can't so thoroughly disarm people within
> their own borders that they're defying Congress' prescriptions for how the
> militia is to be armed.
No the militia can keep arms and thus being armed can provide service to
the country when called on by act of Congress. The right to "Keep" arms is
as important as the right to "Bear" arms.
> >I do not deny the right of the State or Federal government the powers to
> >form milita corps. I am saying that the people have the RTKABA to
maintain
> >freedom.
>
> No... they don't. The Constitution goes to great lengths to define
treason,
> and gives Congress the power to prescribe its punishment. In addition,
one
> of the militia's primary duties to the federal government is to _suppress_
> insurrections -- the Constitution very specifically gives Congress the
power
> to call them forth to do so.
This is a right of the people that can not be granted by the COTUS. The
right existed well before the COTUS was written. This is a fundamental
reason for the SA, no standing army can rule before the citizens are
disarmed, thus the citizens shall remain armed.
> It would seem rather strange to me to extrapolate a suggestion anywhere in
> the Constitution that a body of armed men expected to perform that duty is
> somehow also supposed to be the primary instigators of insurrection.
It is the people who will defend State and Country, the people are the
milita.
> >Let's look at the reference:
>
> >To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the
union,
> >suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
>
> >To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for
> >governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the
United
> >States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the
> >officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the
> >discipline prescribed by Congress;
> >- Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 & 16
>
>http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section1
>
> >My reading of this is that the *militia* is the citizen capable of
bearing
> >arms and "such part of them as may be employed in the service of the
United
> >States" consitutes the *select milita* or *milita corp.*.
>
> No. "Such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United
States"
> means any and all members of the state militia that have been called into
> federal service for the purposes given in the previous clause. It in no
way
> gives any general statement that EVERYONE is a militia member.
No it says "the milita" not "State milita". The State is allowed "the
appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia
according to the discipline prescribed by Congress", relating to the part of
the milita that may be employed by Congress.
> >It can also be argued that law enforcement agencies formed by
communities,
> >and not prohibited by the states constitution, may be called an armed
force
> >as well.
>
> They are not. Law enforcement agencies are police, not militia, and
they're
> well-established as being seperate entities in just about every real
> understanding of the law.
>
Define armed force.
Now don't tell me that a group of citizens employed by government,
organizized, armed, and disciplined by that government can not reasonably be
considered an armed force.
> >False, purely and simply incorect. The SA forbids the government from
> >disarming free citizens. It protects the citizens right to defend thier
> >freedom, and prevents the State or Federal governments from taking these
> >arms away. Because you may not be called into a miltia corp. does not
mean
> >you are not still part of the militia, or that you are not protected
under
> >the SA.
>
> There is not a single statement in this paragraph that is borne out either
> under federal law or court opinions. With the sole exception of a single
> district judge in northern Texas (who, in turn, is defying clear decisions
> by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals over him to the contrary), every
single
> federal decision on the subject of the Second Amendment has been _exactly_
> as I've related it to you. The case law concerning the federal
government's
> limits under it ultimately fall back on this paragraph from U.S. v.
Miller,
> 307 U.S. 174 (1939):
>
> The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress
> power - "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the
> Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To
> provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and
> for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service
> of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the
> Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the
> Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." With
> obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the
> effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the
> Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied
> with that end in view.
> Clear on this so far? The Supreme Court states here, in simple terms,
that
> the Second Amendment's "obvious purpose" is to prevent Congress from
disarming
> the militia forces that they're given power to provide for the arming of
in
> I-8. "It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view." If
you're
> not a member of those militia forces, the Second Amendment does not apply
to
> you.
Combined with the court's statement that all constitutional sources "show
plainly enough that the militia comprised all males physically capable of
acting in concert for the common defense.... these men were expected to
appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at
the time, suggests that at the very least private ownership by a person
capable of self defense and using an ordinary privately owned firearm must
be protected by the Second Amendment. What the Court did not do in Miller is
even more striking: It did not suggest that the lower court take evidence on
whether Miller belonged to the National Guard or a similar group. The
hearing was to be on the nature of the firearm, not on the nature of its
use; nor is there a single suggestion that National Guard status is relevant
to the case.
(Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the United States Senate,
97th Congress, Second Session, February 1982)
Are you clear on that?
> Concerning the states, the case law falls back on this paragraph from
Presser
> v. Illinois:
>
> But a conclusive answer to the
> contention that this amendment prohibits the legislation in
> question lies in the fact that the amendment is a limitation only
> upon the power of Congress and the National government, and not
> upon that of the States. It was so held by this court in the case
> of United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, in which the
> Chief Justice, in delivering the judgment of the court, said, that
> the right of the people to keep and bear arms "is not a right
> granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent
> upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment
> declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been
> seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by
> Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect
> than to restrict the powers of the National government...
>
> Clear on this one, too? If you're under state prosecution, the Second
> Amendment _does_not_apply_ in any way.
It does because the Fourteenth Amendment restricts infringement by officials
acting under color of state law from denying the RTKABA.
Clear on that too?
> >Wrong again. The milita is the armed populace of citizens, the Federal
and
> >State governments are granted the power to employee members of this
milita
> >in a milita corp.
>
> Where exactly does that definition exist, that every citizen is a member
of
> a well-regulated militia force? I see no such definition anywhere in the
> Constitution or laws of the United States, and neither does any federal
> court that's ever been presented with this argument.
The well regulated and employed milita force under control of the United
States is composed of selected members of the milita (i.e. Citizens Capable
of Bearing Arms).
> >In 1792 the pool of armed citizens was called the militia. In 1886 the
were
> >called the reserved militia.
>
> The "reserve militia" was not and (under the term "unorganized militia"
today)
> is not today a militia force.
I never said it was a milita force only the milita (pool of PCOBA)
> For legal terms, it is the body of citizens
> from which the federal government may raise and support armies, and from
which
> the states may draw the membership of the militia forces. There is no
> federal provision for its organization, arming, or discipline, and there
are
> no officers for them appointed by the states or training regimens under
state
> authority.
Ok, the milita is an armed body of citizens who may be called into service
by State or Country.
> >Today we are called people who have the unailienable right to keep and
bear
> >arms.
> I'm sorry, you're going to have to explain the legal logic for how we got
from
> Point A to Point B. Perpich v. Department of Defense gives a pretty good
> history of how our militia law has evolved. In 1792, the militia was
indeed
> constituted of otherwise private citizens who were expected to arm
themselves.
> Under that definition, the Second Amendment did indeed give a fairly broad
> protection to such citizens to keep and bear their own arms. Today,
that's
> simply not how the militia is armed any more -- they're armed by a dual
> enlistment system whereby they are simultaneously enlisted in the reserve
> forces of the federal army, and they are armed from federal arsenals.
Perpich
> makes it pretty clear that one system is just as good as the other:
>
> The second Militia Clause enhances federal power in three
> additional ways. First, it authorizes Congress to provide for
> "organizing, arming and disciplining the Militia." ... Over the
years,
> Congress has exercised this power in various ways, but its current
> choice of a dual enlistment system is just as permissible as the
> 1792 choice to have the members of the militia arm themselves
> So long as Congress does not interfere with whatever process that is used
> to arm the militia, and it can be reasonably inferred that the process
they
> prescribe does indeed provide for an effective militia force, the Second
> Amendment is not being violated. It is beyond reasonable dispute that the
> National Guard forces today are the most effective militia force that has
> ever been assembled under federal law, in terms of reliability and fitness
> to perform their duties to state and national security. Indeed, the
National
> Guard could probably tackle most nations' _armies_ by themselves. That
has
> pretty much _never_ been true of this country's militia forces before the
> Guard was organized in its present fashion.
This does not invalidate the right to keep and bear arms. Congress has no
authority to do this and according to Pressor v. Illinois neither do the
States.
> And, true to the Constitution's provisions, every facet of the National
Guard
> is dictated properly: their organization, arming, and discipline is
prescribed
> by Congress. Their officers are appointed by the states. They are
trained
> under state authority according to Congress' prescription. And Congress
may
> call them forth to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections,
and
> repel invasions. And, in perfect keeping with the Second Amendment, they
are
> VERY well armed.
They are not armed by Congress as a result of the Secound Amendment. They
are armed under Article I, Section 8 of the COTUS. Congress has no power
dealing with the peoples right to keep and bear arms.
> In addition, any state who wishes to equip further militia forces may do
so
> at their own expense. The feds have a good enough militia force that they
> don't mind letting the states have whatever else they feel that they need,
> so there can be no argument that the states are, in any way, potentially
> deprived of the resource of their militia forces.
> Harbor no illusions that the militia was ever meant to be anything more
than
> that. The Constitution makes it very clear that the militia is a state
> organization first, a federal resource second, and nothing more or less
than
> that
The organized milita, yes.
> I defy you to find any clause in its text that suggests it was ever
> meant to be anything else, or that provides for any sort of independence
from
> federal or state authority. Absent that, high-minded arguments that the
> militia are some broad group of people regardless of what militia law says
> they are fail on their surface.
The Secound Amendment says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms
shall not be infringed" and the milita is made up of people capable of
bearing arms. Seems pretty clear to me.
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are
in almost every
kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws
by the sword,
because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force
superior to any band
of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States"
- Noah Webster
"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by a rule
of construction be
conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a
flagitious attempt could
only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in
blind pursuit of
inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed
to as a restraint
on both."
- William Rawle 1825
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> The Stilt Man stil...@teleport.com
> http://www.teleport.com/~stiltman/stiltman.html
> < We are Microsoft Borg '98. Lower your expectations and >
> < surrender your money. Antitrust law is irrelevant. >
> < Competition is irrelevant. We will add your financial and >
> < technological distinctiveness to our own. Your software >
> < will adapt to service ours. Resistance is futile. >
--
Craig Irish
"[the]Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the people of the
United States
who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms"
- Samuel Adams
Pro-Rights
"Scout" <sc...@monumental.com> wrote in message
news:ww2a5.12414$HD6.3...@iad-read.news.verio.net...> news:39653C22...@interaccess.com...
> > kqualls wrote:
> >
> > > RD,
> > >
> > > One thing to add, the state is not the only government that has
> historically
> > > had to call on the members of the militia for defense of itself.
During
> the
> > > early parts of this country private citizens with their personally
owned
> > > guns, i.e what we call the militia, was routinely called on to protect
> their
> > > town from Indians and other marauders.
> >
> > militia. Thus, their private arms were protected under the 2nd
Amendment.
>
of
not
> protected under the 2nd.
>
> Seems Ray is in a bit of a contradiction here.
>
Ray is a very confused individual. He, like lee, contradicts himself all the
time. He is not worth debating with.
Pro-Rights
> > Randy Sweeney wrote:
> >
> > > Ray wrote in message <39653C22...@interaccess.com>...
> > > >kqualls wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> One thing to add, the state is not the only government that has
> > > historically
> > > >> had to call on the members of the militia for defense of itself.
> During
> > > the
> > > >> early parts of this country private citizens with their personally
> owned
> > > >> guns, i.e what we call the militia, was routinely called on to
> protect
> > > their
> > > >> town from Indians and other marauders.
> > > >
> > > >militia. Thus, their private arms were protected under the 2nd
> Amendment.
> > >
> like
> > > them) from those enrolled in local-government-controlled militia.
> > > You must fell conflicted.
> >
> > RR: Not at all, because you are wrong. All federal gun
> > restrictions have exceptions in them for government-run
> > agencies (of which a state militia would be one)
>
> So the private arms of an individual now counts as the property of a
> government-run agency simply because they are a member/employee?
>
> Where exactly is this set forth in the law?
>
Here he goes again... The 2nd protects the government.
Randy Sweeney
Pro-Rights wrote in message ...
>Ray is a very confused individual. He, like lee, contradicts himself all
the
>time. He is not worth debating with.
Lee is developing into a Jim Kennemur... a vicious and ugly troll merely
pretending to be interested in the topic. Lee enjoys the lie... it gives him
a feeling of "worth".
Hopefully Ray is more rational.
Stilt Man
Craig <crai...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Stilt Man <stil...@user2.teleport.com> wrote in message
>news:8k5113$7m6$1...@user2.teleport.com...
>> In article <fZb95.9069$oh5.6...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>> Craig <crai...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> >It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute
>> >the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well
>> >as of the States, and, in view of this prerogative of the general
>> >government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying
>> >the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people
>> >from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their
>> >rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the
>> >people from performing their duty to the general government.
>> >- Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)
>> >http://www.2ndlawlib.org/court/fed/sc/116us252.html
>> Okay. So you tell me. What, in specific and simple terms, does that really
>> _say_?
>The court is saying that the State cannot deny the peoples right to keep and
>bear arms. Federal Government is already barred from this.
I'll let the Seventh Circuit's words slap you silly over this rather than
answering directly.
As we have noted, the parties agree that Presser is
controlling, but disagree as to what Presser held. It is difficult
to understand how appellants can assert that Presser supports the
theory that the second amendment right to keep and bear arms is a
fundamental right which the state cannot regulate when the Presser
decision plainly states that "[t]he Second Amendment declares that
it shall not be infringed, but this . . . means no more than that
it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the
amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of
the National government . . . " Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252,
265, 6 S.Ct. 580, 584, 29 L.Ed. 615 (1886). As the district court
explained in detail, appellants' claim that Presser supports the
proposition that the second amendment guarantee of the right to
keep and bear arms is not subject to state restriction is based on
dicta quoted out of context. Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove,
5:32 F.Supp. at 1181-82. This argument borders on the frivolous
and does not warrant any further consideration.
That, my friend, is about as scathing of language as you'll ever see coming
from the pen of a federal judge.
Read it more carefully, since the courts obviously don't agree with you. Read
hard about the part where they say that you can't do it to a point where you're
depriving the federal government of its rightful militia resource for the
guarantee of the public security, and you'll start to get it. They're saying
pretty specifically that there is no _constitutional_ provision that inhibits
the states -- if the Second Amendment had a restriction on the states, they
wouldn't be using that kind of language.
They're obviously talking about federal militia law.
>> >I do not deny the right of the State or Federal government the powers to
>> >form milita corps. I am saying that the people have the RTKABA to maintain
>> >freedom.
>> No... they don't. The Constitution goes to great lengths to define treason,
>> and gives Congress the power to prescribe its punishment. In addition, one
>> of the militia's primary duties to the federal government is to _suppress_
>> insurrections -- the Constitution very specifically gives Congress the power
>> to call them forth to do so.
>This is a right of the people that can not be granted by the COTUS. The
>right existed well before the COTUS was written. This is a fundamental
>reason for the SA, no standing army can rule before the citizens are
>disarmed, thus the citizens shall remain armed.
The citizenry of Nazi Germany -- who were QUITE well armed -- would seem to
serve as a glaring counter-example of this maxim.
>> >Let's look at the reference:
>> >To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union,
>> >suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
>> >To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for
>> >governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United
>> >States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the
>> >officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the
>> >discipline prescribed by Congress;
>> >- Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 & 16
>>http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section1
>> >My reading of this is that the *militia* is the citizen capable of
>bearing
>> >arms and "such part of them as may be employed in the service of the
>United
>> >States" consitutes the *select milita* or *milita corp.*.
>> No. "Such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United
>> States" means any and all members of the state militia that have been
>> called into federal service for the purposes given in the previous
>> clause. It in no way gives any general statement that EVERYONE is
>> a militia member.
>No it says "the milita" not "State milita". The State is allowed "the
>appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia
>according to the discipline prescribed by Congress", relating to the part of
>the milita that may be employed by Congress.
Congress may call _all_ of the militia if they have a reason to. Indeed,
during World War I, that's exactly what they did -- they drafted the entire
militia into the army.
>> >It can also be argued that law enforcement agencies formed by communities,
>> >and not prohibited by the states constitution, may be called an armed force
>> >as well.
>> They are not. Law enforcement agencies are police, not militia, and they're
>> well-established as being seperate entities in just about every real
>> understanding of the law.
>Define armed force.
An armed force would be a military body, trained and drilled and marching under
martial discipline for the purpose of fighting wars.
A police force has tangential similarities to a military force, but they do
not bear any sort of martial discipline, and their primary purpose is to uphold
the civic order and enforce civilian law.
Military forces and police forces, in our system of laws, do not typically
overlap. The militia is sometimes used to put down large-scale riots or to
help in natural disasters and other emergencies, but their primary purpose
is military defense, not civil order.
There is a _huge_ difference.
No, that was an observation of what the militia was comprised of at the time
the Constitution was written. In _obvious_ terms, the Court was not adopting
that as a statement of what the militia _always_ will be, or else Miller and
Layton would have won their case.
The simple fact is, they didn't.
Nor, in plain observation, did the people who originally wrote the Constitution
intend that Congress was to be bound to band the militia together in the exact
same manner that it was when they wrote the thing. Article I-8 doesn't _just_
give Congress the power to provide for the _arming_ of the militia, it also
gives them the power to provide for the _organization_ of the militia. That is
a very plain endorsement by the framers for Congress to decide however they
liked about what form the militia should take. Indeed, Theodore Roosevelt had
a rather brutal analysis about the framers' original militia laws in 1901:
"Action should be taken in reference to the militia and to the
raising of volunteer forces. Our militia law is obsolete and
worthless. The organization and armament of the National Guard of
the several States, which are treated as militia in the
appropriations by the Congress, should be made identical with those
provided for the regular forces. The obligations and duties of the
Guard in time of war should be carefully defined, and a system
established by law under which the method of procedure of raising
volunteer forces should be prescribed in advance. It is utterly
impossible in the excitement and haste of impending war to do this
satisfactorily if the arrangements have not been made long
beforehand. Provision should be made for utilizing in the first
volunteer organizations called out the training of those citizens
who have already had experience under arms, and especially for the
selection in advance of the officers of any force which may be
raised, for careful selection of the kind necessary is impossible
after the outbreak of war." First Annual Message to Congress, Dec.
3, 1901, 14 Messages and Papers of the Presidents 6672.
This message to Congress was the first stage in the reorganization of the
militia into its present National Guard form.
The simple fact is, the militia is _not_ organized the same way it was in 1787.
Any sources from then about what the militia was _then_ have no bearing on what
it is _now_, because it _wasn't_ what it is now. What a bunch of aides write
to the GOP Senate with an obvious political axe to grind in 1982 (which is
what you're quoting back at me that I snipped -- and which has been completely
ignored by the courts, because it has no force in constitutional law) has no
real basis in present-day fact. The militia _is_not_ organized today like it
was then, and any argument based around the militia as referred to in the
Second Amendment as though it is simply doesn't transact in reality.
>> Concerning the states, the case law falls back on this paragraph from Presser
>> v. Illinois:
>> But a conclusive answer to the
>> contention that this amendment prohibits the legislation in
>> question lies in the fact that the amendment is a limitation only
>> upon the power of Congress and the National government, and not
>> upon that of the States. It was so held by this court in the case
>> of United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, in which the
>> Chief Justice, in delivering the judgment of the court, said, that
>> the right of the people to keep and bear arms "is not a right
>> granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent
>> upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment
>> declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been
>> seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by
>> Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect
>> than to restrict the powers of the National government...
>> Clear on this one, too? If you're under state prosecution, the Second
>> Amendment _does_not_apply_ in any way.
>It does because the Fourteenth Amendment restricts infringement by officials
>acting under color of state law from denying the RTKABA.
>Clear on that too?
I'm sorry. Presser SPECIFICALLY held the opposite. It has NEVER been
overturned.
>> >Wrong again. The milita is the armed populace of citizens, the Federal and
>> >State governments are granted the power to employee members of this milita
>> >in a milita corp.
>> Where exactly does that definition exist, that every citizen is a member of
>> a well-regulated militia force? I see no such definition anywhere in the
>> Constitution or laws of the United States, and neither does any federal
>> court that's ever been presented with this argument.
>The well regulated and employed milita force under control of the United
>States is composed of selected members of the milita (i.e. Citizens Capable
>of Bearing Arms).
That's a dodge.
You're postulating that the militia forces of this country consist of everyone.
If Congress and the states are not to disarm the private citizens, then there
must exist some federal law that provides for private citizens' organization,
arming, and discipline, and there must exist officers for that "militia"
appointed by the states and state provisions for training them according to
Congress' prescribed discipline.
Except that, aside from the National Guard and additional state militias,
there _is_ no such prescription, training, officers, or anything.
Presser v. Illinois says PRECISELY the opposite of what you are trying to make
it say. If you go to ANY respectable lawyer who isn't on the payroll of the
pro-gun lobby, or any federal court at all, you're going to hear exactly what
I'm telling you here.
The point I'm trying to get at (and the courts will drill into you if you make
them) is that the Second Amendment has a purpose that is inextricably tied to
keeping the militia effective. Today, private citizens' keeping their own
weapons is completely irrelevant to that purpose.
If any given state were to give out a general call to its citizenry to start
stockpiling their own weapons with the eventual expectation of being called
up for militia duty, then that would change in that state. At present, no
state has done so. Neither does the federal government.
>> And, true to the Constitution's provisions, every facet of the National Guard
>> is dictated properly: their organization, arming, and discipline is
>> prescribed by Congress. Their officers are appointed by the states.
>> They are trained
>> under state authority according to Congress' prescription. And Congress may
>> call them forth to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections, and
>> repel invasions. And, in perfect keeping with the Second Amendment, they are
>> VERY well armed.
>They are not armed by Congress as a result of the Secound Amendment. They
>are armed under Article I, Section 8 of the COTUS.
If you can't figure out that those two sections of the Constitution are
directly related to one another, then you need some remedial courses in
reading comprehension. Either that, or you need to start reading something
that the pro-gun lobby didn't fund on the subject.
kqualls
Where does the Second Article of the Bill of Rights say that it does not
cover the owning of arms for self defense?
--
Thanks
Kevin Q.
kqu...@chartertn.net - Regular Email
kwqu...@hotmail.com - NRA / Pro-gun related email
NRA-ILA Election Volunteer Coordinator - 1st District Tennessee
"RD Thompson" <san...@azstarnet.com> wrote in message
news:u7nfmsoc816u7btce...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 7 Jul 2000 17:10:52 -0400, "kqualls"
> <kqualls@nospammersallowed_chartertn.net> wrote:
>
> >RD,
> >
> >One thing to add, the state is not the only government that has
historically
> >had to call on the members of the militia for defense of itself. During
the
> >early parts of this country private citizens with their personally owned
> >guns, i.e what we call the militia, was routinely called on to protect
their
> >town from Indians and other marauders.
>
> Yes, they were called into action by their local governments.
>
> > We hope to never see it come to that
> >again, but look at what happened in Los Angeles after the Rodney King
> >verdict. Was not the rioters marauders and the people worked to
protecting
> >their own property with their personally owned firearms? Even though
they
> >were not called out by the governor, was not this act of defending
peoples
> >property exactly one of the duties of the militia when it comes to local
> >duties?
>
> Yes, however they were not a militia as referred to in the
> Constitution. They were a citizen force that banded together to
> protect their common interest. None of them defended any shops or
> territories outside of their own immediate interest.
>
>
> >How quickly could the average citizen be needed to defend someone's
property
> >again, including their own? In the blink of an eye. There would not be
> >time to go to the armory to retrieve the weapons. That is why the people
of
> >the United States of America has their right to keep and bear arms
protected
> >from infringement from the government.
>
> That is why we have the right to keep and bear arms, but self defense
> or defense of personal property is not covered under the Second
> Amendment.
>
> >So we can act whenever needed for
> >the protection of self, family, neighbor, and community.
>
> The Second Amendment only covers the protection of the state and uses
> that as one reason why the feds cannot screw with the right of the
> people to keep and bear arms. It does not consider self defense as
> even the anti-federalists agreed that that would be understood.
>
>
David E. Young
Stilt Man wrote in message <8kbld6$51a$1...@user2.teleport.com>...
SM:
>No, that was an observation of what the militia was comprised of at the
time
>the Constitution was written. In _obvious_ terms, the Court was not
adopting
>that as a statement of what the militia _always_ will be, or else Miller
and
>Layton would have won their case.
>
>The simple fact is, they didn't.
DY: So, TPG readers would like to know exactly when Miller and Layton were
convicted of violating the law they had been charged with. When was that?
Whoops, they were never convicted? So perhaps one might say that they won?
There must be some reason why the government decided not to go back to trial
with this case. What does anyone suppose that reason might be?
--
David E. Young dey...@up.net
Editor - The Origin of the Second Amendment:
A Documentary History of the Bill of Rights in
Commentaries on Liberty, Free Government,
and an Armed Populace, 1787-1792.
Information at http://members.xoom.com/youngde/
Stilt Man
>Stilt Man wrote in message <8kbld6$51a$1...@user2.teleport.com>...
>SM:
>>the Constitution was written. In _obvious_ terms, the Court was not adopting
>>that as a statement of what the militia _always_ will be, or else Miller and
>>Layton would have won their case.
>>The simple fact is, they didn't.
>DY: So, TPG readers would like to know exactly when Miller and Layton were
>convicted of violating the law they had been charged with. When was that?
>Whoops, they were never convicted? So perhaps one might say that they won?
In other words, you're praying you're right or that I at least can't prove
otherwise. Unfortunately, your prayers in all cases are in vain.
Jack Miller was found dead on April 6, 1939, of four gunshot wounds from a .38.
His .45 caliber pistol, from which he had fired three shots in his defense,
was found near his body. As he had turned state's evidence in several
previous gang-committed bank robbery cases in which he had taken part, it is
likely that his former partners in crime caught up to him. This took place
prior to the Supreme Court decision that bears his name.
Frank Layton, after the decision, pleaded guilty to the charge of transporting
a shotgun with a barrel of less than eighteen inches' length across state lines
without an NFA registration, and was placed on five years' probation by Judge
Heartsill Ragon on January 8, 1940. He was discharged from probation on
January 29, 1944.
It's _abundantly_ clear that they lost the case.
Craig
Yes, the ones who were oppressing the minority groups were well armed. Of
course this was after strict gun control was enacted disarming minorities.
Kind of like what's happening in this country today don't ya think?
I do not disagree with this, but it would, by calling all citizens capable
of bearing arms into federal service, in fact be militarizing the entire
nation. This would only be necessary in cases of national preservation from
a foriegn power, or in the case of a civil war.
> >> >It can also be argued that law enforcement agencies formed by
communities,
> >> >and not prohibited by the states constitution, may be called an armed
force
> >> >as well.
>
> >> They are not. Law enforcement agencies are police, not militia, and
they're
> >> well-established as being seperate entities in just about every real
> >> understanding of the law.
>
> >Define armed force.
>
> An armed force would be a military body, trained and drilled and marching
under
> martial discipline for the purpose of fighting wars.
Have you seen the way some LEOs train? They even refer to fighting crime as
a "War".
> A police force has tangential similarities to a military force, but they
do
> not bear any sort of martial discipline, and their primary purpose is to
uphold
> the civic order and enforce civilian law.
Since many LEOs have cross trained with the military it would seem that this
argument has been renderd moot. The training of LEOs by the military should
be un-constitutional, but apparently it is now the practice.
> Military forces and police forces, in our system of laws, do not typically
> overlap. The militia is sometimes used to put down large-scale riots or
to
> help in natural disasters and other emergencies, but their primary purpose
> is military defense, not civil order.
>
> There is a _huge_ difference.
Is there? I would say that asside from some specialized, highly destructive,
weapons the two forces are very simular.
It would be ignorant of history and the current world turmoil to say that
the country should abandon the use of those people who are capable of
bearing arms as a primary means of defending our country. Who would we have
provide this service for our nation? Would we limit participation in defense
to those who are already in the military? I think not.
And the simple fact is that they did not lose.
It is interesting that Roosevelt would make clear that the selection of
troops "which are treated as militia in the appropriations by the Congress"
should be made from those citizens those citizens "who have already had
experience under arms". Isn't he saying that when a citizenship is familiar
with the use of arms they becomes an asset to the formation of an army? This
is at the heart of the argument for an unorganized milita/reserved
milita/milita.
> This message to Congress was the first stage in the reorganization of the
> militia into its present National Guard form.
And the recinding of the Milita act of 1792.
> The simple fact is, the militia is _not_ organized the same way it was in
1787.
> Any sources from then about what the militia was _then_ have no bearing on
what
> it is _now_, because it _wasn't_ what it is now. What a bunch of aides
write
> to the GOP Senate with an obvious political axe to grind in 1982 (which is
> what you're quoting back at me that I snipped -- and which has been
completely
> ignored by the courts, because it has no force in constitutional law) has
no
> real basis in present-day fact. The militia _is_not_ organized today like
it
> was then, and any argument based around the militia as referred to in the
> Second Amendment as though it is simply doesn't transact in reality.
Since the people are the source of the milita and being that a well
regulated (familliar with the use of weapons) milita is necessary for the
security of a free State (this can be infered to mean Untited States in
cases that affect national defense), The right of the *PEOPLE* to keep and
bear arms shall not be infringed (or denied). A fundemantal liberty and the
source of the milita.
It doesn't need to be overturned since the Fourteenth Amendment was passed
12 year later. Presser only gives further credence to the right to keep and
bear arms by saying that it cannot be infringed to deny the Federal
Government their pool of milita for national service.
The people who are capable of bearing arms (i.e. milita) are the key to the
sorce of our military. It would seem the the SCOTUS would agree in US v.
Schwimmer.
"The common defense was one of the purposes for which the people ordained
and established the Constitution. It empowers Congress to provide for such
defense, [army and militia clauses]; it declares that a well regulated
militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the
people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. We need not refer to
the numerous statutes that contemplate defense of the United States, its
Constitution and laws by armed citizens. ... 'the very conception of a just
government and its duty to the citizen includes the reciprocal obligation of
the citizen to render military service in case of need....'
- United States v. Schwimmer, 279 U.S. 644 (1929).
http://www.2ndlawlib.org/court/fed/sc/279us644.html
> >> >Wrong again. The milita is the armed populace of citizens, the Federal
and
> >> >State governments are granted the power to employee members of this
milita
> >> >in a milita corp.
>
> >> Where exactly does that definition exist, that every citizen is a
member of
> >> a well-regulated militia force? I see no such definition anywhere in
the
> >> Constitution or laws of the United States, and neither does any federal
> >> court that's ever been presented with this argument.
>
> >The well regulated and employed milita force under control of the United
> >States is composed of selected members of the milita (i.e. Citizens
Capable
> >of Bearing Arms).
>
> That's a dodge.
No it's a fact.
>
> You're postulating that the militia forces of this country consist of
everyone.
> If Congress and the states are not to disarm the private citizens, then
there
> must exist some federal law that provides for private citizens'
organization,
> arming, and discipline, and there must exist officers for that "militia"
> appointed by the states and state provisions for training them according
to
> Congress' prescribed discipline.
Since the "Right to Keep and Bear Arms" is inherent in the makeup of this
nation, and the States are obligated to respect rights attributed to
citizens under the COTUS, and the COTS, and those that are unalienable, it
would seem that the States could not make laws infringing on the civil right
to keep and bear arms. I have no site for this since it is a construction of
logic. However tangible precidents do exist.
It says that there are reasons for denying the State control over a persons
rights under the COTUS.
> The point I'm trying to get at (and the courts will drill into you if you
make
> them) is that the Second Amendment has a purpose that is inextricably tied
to
> keeping the militia effective. Today, private citizens' keeping their own
> weapons is completely irrelevant to that purpose.
Is it? Teddy would disagree.
> If any given state were to give out a general call to its citizenry to
start
> stockpiling their own weapons with the eventual expectation of being
called
> up for militia duty, then that would change in that state. At present, no
> state has done so. Neither does the federal government.
The People already have enough arms to defend the nation in a conventional
war. To call upon them to stockpile more would mean we were already at war.
Because we have the right to keep and bear arms we are already prepared to
be enlisted in the defense of State or Country.
> >> And, true to the Constitution's provisions, every facet of the National
Guard
> >> is dictated properly: their organization, arming, and discipline is
> >> prescribed by Congress. Their officers are appointed by the states.
> >> They are trained
> >> under state authority according to Congress' prescription. And
Congress may
> >> call them forth to execute the laws of the union, suppress
insurrections, and
> >> repel invasions. And, in perfect keeping with the Second Amendment,
they are
> >> VERY well armed.
>
> >They are not armed by Congress as a result of the Secound Amendment. They
> >are armed under Article I, Section 8 of the COTUS.
>
> If you can't figure out that those two sections of the Constitution are
> directly related to one another, then you need some remedial courses in
> reading comprehension. Either that, or you need to start reading
something
> that the pro-gun lobby didn't fund on the subject.
They are related in that a populus who is familiar with the keeping and
bearing of arms becomes a better source for the provisions of Article I
Section 8. There are greater reasons for the Secound Amendment than to
satisfy the demands of Congress.
You should not infer that I read only pro gun literature, else your cites be
used against you when freedom of thought is banned. I am my own man and as
such have my own convictions to be true to.
Stilt Man
>>Craig wrote:
>> >This is a right of the people that can not be granted by the COTUS. The
>> >right existed well before the COTUS was written. This is a fundamental
>> >reason for the SA, no standing army can rule before the citizens are
>> >disarmed, thus the citizens shall remain armed.
>> The citizenry of Nazi Germany -- who were QUITE well armed -- would seem to
>> serve as a glaring counter-example of this maxim.
>Yes, the ones who were oppressing the minority groups were well armed. Of
>course this was after strict gun control was enacted disarming minorities.
>Kind of like what's happening in this country today don't ya think?
Irrelevant. The vast majority of the German citizenry was armed to the gills.
The standing army and the secret police had complete control of the country
nonetheless. That is a glaring counterexample to the claim that "no standing
army can rule before the citizens are disarmed".
>> >Define armed force.
>> An armed force would be a military body, trained and drilled and marching
>> under martial discipline for the purpose of fighting wars.
>Have you seen the way some LEOs train? They even refer to fighting crime as
>a "War".
So do professional football players. On serious terms, they're full of it
and they know it.
>> A police force has tangential similarities to a military force, but they do
>> not bear any sort of martial discipline, and their primary purpose is to
>> uphold the civic order and enforce civilian law.
>Since many LEOs have cross trained with the military it would seem that this
>argument has been renderd moot. The training of LEOs by the military should
>be un-constitutional, but apparently it is now the practice.
Define "military"? If you mean to say that some LEOs have been trained to,
for example, work alongside the National Guard on riot duty, that's a very
different thing than saying that they have effectively been trained as a
military force.
>> >Combined with the court's statement that all constitutional sources "show
>> >plainly enough that the militia comprised all males physically capable of
>> >acting in concert for the common defense....
>> No, that was an observation of what the militia was comprised of at the time
>> the Constitution was written. In _obvious_ terms, the Court was not adopting
>> that as a statement of what the militia _always_ will be, or else Miller and
>> Layton would have won their case.
>> The simple fact is, they didn't.
>It would be ignorant of history and the current world turmoil to say that
>the country should abandon the use of those people who are capable of
>bearing arms as a primary means of defending our country.
No, it wouldn't. We can't train _everyone_ to be a soldier. You can find
that basic and sober statement in the Federalist Papers. And without real
martial training and discipline, throwing citizens into a war zone is almost
a cruel waste of human life.
>And the simple fact is that they did not lose.
Miller was dead before the decision; Layton, upon the Supreme Court's sending
the case back to the district judge with a reversal of his quashing of the
indictment, pleaded guilty to that indictment and was sentenced to five years'
probation (he served a little over four).
The only interpretation of those facts which is consistent with basic
comprehension of reality is that they lost the case.
[Re: Theodore Roosevelt's message to Congress on reorganizing the militia.]
>It is interesting that Roosevelt would make clear that the selection of
>troops "which are treated as militia in the appropriations by the Congress"
>should be made from those citizens those citizens "who have already had
>experience under arms". Isn't he saying that when a citizenship is familiar
>with the use of arms they becomes an asset to the formation of an army? This
>is at the heart of the argument for an unorganized milita/reserved
>milita/milita.
It's an argument for having a reserve militia. But the fact remains, we don't
use one. There is no provision for organizing everyone as a potential militia
member, nor _should_ there be.
>> This message to Congress was the first stage in the reorganization of the
>> militia into its present National Guard form.
>And the recinding of the Milita act of 1792.
That's correct.
>> The simple fact is, the militia is _not_ organized the same way it was in
>> 1787. Any sources from then about what the militia was _then_ have no
>> bearing on what it is _now_, because it _wasn't_ what it is now.
>Since the people are the source of the milita and being that a well
>regulated (familliar with the use of weapons) milita is necessary for the
>security of a free State (this can be infered to mean Untited States in
>cases that affect national defense), The right of the *PEOPLE* to keep and
>bear arms shall not be infringed (or denied). A fundemantal liberty and the
>source of the milita.
That can be one interpretation of it. The simple fact remains that the
courts do not agree with it. Their interpretation of it is the only one
that counts.
>> >It does because the Fourteenth Amendment restricts infringement by officials
>> >acting under color of state law from denying the RTKABA.
>> >Clear on that too?
>> I'm sorry. Presser SPECIFICALLY held the opposite. It has NEVER been
>> overturned.
>It doesn't need to be overturned since the Fourteenth Amendment was passed
>12 year later. Presser only gives further credence to the right to keep and
>bear arms by saying that it cannot be infringed to deny the Federal
>Government their pool of milita for national service.
Uhhhhh... you REALLY need to check your dates here. The Fourteenth was passed
shortly after the Civil War, and was ratified and in effect by 1875. Presser
was handed down in 1886, and is still cited as the seminal authority on the
subject of whether the Second Amendment is to be held enforceable against the
states. For instance, the Supreme Court cited Presser as such in Malloy v.
Hogan in the 1960's. I screwed up in quoting the Seventh Circuit to you
earlier and omitted the case name -- that was Quilici v. Village of Morton
Grove (7th. Cir 1982). More recently, Presser was cited as the controlling
authority in Fresno Rifle and Pistol Club v. Van de Kamp (9th Cir. 1992) and
Hickman v. Block (9th Cir. 1996). (If you must have the case numbers I can
get those easily, don't feel like looking them up right now.)
The Second Amendment is not the only element of the Bill of Rights to be
so held unenforceable against the states. The Seventh Amendment isn't (I
think), the Third Amendment isn't, and the grand jury indictment requirement
of the Fifth (?) Amendment isn't.
>> >> >Wrong again. The milita is the armed populace of citizens, the Federal
>> >> >and State governments are granted the power to employee members of
>> >> >this milita in a milita corp.
>> >> Where exactly does that definition exist, that every citizen is a member
>> >> of a well-regulated militia force? I see no such definition anywhere
>> >> in the
>> >> Constitution or laws of the United States, and neither does any federal
>> >> court that's ever been presented with this argument.
>> >The well regulated and employed milita force under control of the United
>> >States is composed of selected members of the milita (i.e. Citizens Capable
>> >of Bearing Arms).
>> That's a dodge.
>No it's a fact.
It's a dodge. You're postulating that every citizen could be called up on
a moment's notice under present federal law. I'm defying you to point me at
any federal or state provision where this is given. You're coming back at me
with high-falutin' gibberish.
Where in the federal or state lawbooks is a definition given for the
organization, arming, and martial discipline of every able-bodied citizen
between X and Y years of age, appointment of their officers by the states,
and training them under state authority according to the discipline prescribed
by Congress? If that provision does not exist, then that group of citizens
is not a militia force.
>> You're postulating that the militia forces of this country consist of
>> everyone. If Congress and the states are not to disarm the private citizens,
>> then there
>> must exist some federal law that provides for private citizens'
>> organization,
>> arming, and discipline, and there must exist officers for that "militia"
>> appointed by the states and state provisions for training them according
>to
>> Congress' prescribed discipline.
>Since the "Right to Keep and Bear Arms" is inherent in the makeup of this
>nation, and the States are obligated to respect rights attributed to
>citizens under the COTUS, and the COTS, and those that are unalienable, it
>would seem that the States could not make laws infringing on the civil right
>to keep and bear arms. I have no site for this since it is a construction of
>logic. However tangible precidents do exist.
No, they don't. Tangible precedents exist stating the exact opposite. You
have no cite for this because it is a construction of what you deem logic,
not of any tenet set down in federal/state statute or case law.
>> >This does not invalidate the right to keep and bear arms. Congress has no
>> >authority to do this and according to Pressor v. Illinois neither do the
>> >States.
>> Presser v. Illinois says PRECISELY the opposite of what you are trying to
>> make it say. If you go to ANY respectable lawyer who isn't on the payroll
>> of the pro-gun lobby, or any federal court at all, you're going to hear
>> exactly what I'm telling you here.
>It says that there are reasons for denying the State control over a persons
>rights under the COTUS.
No, it says that there is no Constitutional provision to do so, and leaves the
door open if you take it badly enough out of context by admonishing the states
against taking this decision as a mandate to violate federal militia law by
going overboard in disarming every citizen of their respective state who is
not a member of the federal army.
>> The point I'm trying to get at (and the courts will drill into you if you
>> make them) is that the Second Amendment has a purpose that is inextricably
>> tied to
>> keeping the militia effective. Today, private citizens' keeping their own
>> weapons is completely irrelevant to that purpose.
>Is it? Teddy would disagree.
Teddy was the impetus behind getting the militia armed out of federal coffers
because it was utterly useless to expect people to do it themselves, which
makes your statement rather doubtful. In any case, our militia law is not
exactly the same as he left it and he's not alive today to comment, which
makes your statement pretty irrelevant anyhow.
During World War I, provisions were made to allow the federal government to
draft the National Guard into the army.
Shortly after the war, provisions were made to allow the National Guard to
take their members back when the army was through with them.
Shortly before World War II, provisions were made that established the first
dual enlistment systems whereby all members of the National Guard
simultaneously enlist in the National Guard of their respective states (i.e.
the militia) and the National Guard of the United States (i.e. the reserve
forces of the army). Under this system, they simultaneously swear an oath
to obey the governor of their state _and_ the President of the United States.
A little after World War II (during Korea, I believe), provisions were made
to allow the federal government to temporarily federalize members of the
National Guard for training missions overseas, with the consent of their
state governors (i.e. governors were given the power to veto such missions).
For quite a while, such consent was routinely obtained until a few governors
(California and Maine's, IIRC, I'd have to read Perpich again) started
objecting to such operations, at which point Congress required that the
governors' reasons for vetoing them couldn't merely be based on personal
objections to the nature of the missions. This brought about Gov. Perpich's
case against the U.S. over the Minnesota NG's training missions in Honduras
during the Reagan administration.
>> If any given state were to give out a general call to its citizenry to start
>> stockpiling their own weapons with the eventual expectation of being called
>> up for militia duty, then that would change in that state. At present, no
>> state has done so. Neither does the federal government.
>The People already have enough arms to defend the nation in a conventional
>war. To call upon them to stockpile more would mean we were already at war.
>Because we have the right to keep and bear arms we are already prepared to
>be enlisted in the defense of State or Country.
"We" are not, in any stretch of the imagination, prepared to fight a war
in the defense of the country. Any halfway modern army would utterly
slaughter our non-National Guard citizenry.
"We" are not, in any stretch of the imagination, an armed force prepared to
take our places beside or behind the army and/or National Guard in such a
situation.
"We" do not possess weapons enough to call ourselves a militia force.
"We" are _not_ a militia force.
>> >[The National Guard] are not armed by Congress as a result of the Secound
>> > Amendment. They are armed under Article I, Section 8 of the COTUS.
>> If you can't figure out that those two sections of the Constitution are
>> directly related to one another, then you need some remedial courses in
>> reading comprehension. Either that, or you need to start reading something
>> that the pro-gun lobby didn't fund on the subject.
>They are related in that a populus who is familiar with the keeping and
>bearing of arms becomes a better source for the provisions of Article I
>Section 8. There are greater reasons for the Secound Amendment than to
>satisfy the demands of Congress.
The Second Amendment is not to satisfy the demands of Congress, no. The
Second Amendment's purpose is to assure that Congress will not abuse its
powers to provide for the arming of the militia to "provide" for _disarming_
the militia or otherwise rendering it ineffective. Its purpose is being
served; I dare say that the foreign armies that the National Guard couldn't
tackle could be counted on one hand, with absolutely no assistance from any
private citizen in private possession of a single firearm.
RD Thompson
<kqualls@nospammersallowed_chartertn.net> wrote:
>RD,
>
>Where does the Second Article of the Bill of Rights say that it does not
>cover the owning of arms for self defense?
It doesn't. It only covers the reason why the *government* should be
interested in having the citizens armed. Self defense and hunting are
*personal* reasons for having the right to own guns, not the
government's. I view the Second Amendment and the Right to Keep and
Bear Arms as two separate issues. For one thing, I am too old to be a
militia member but I am not too old to blow away an intruder coming
into my home.
I look at the right to keep and bear arms as a rather natural right
and the Second Amendment as a two fold amendment in response to the
federal usage of the militia in Article I, section 8, clause 15 that
also protects that right to keep and bear arms from the federal
government. If it hadn't been for some Court decisions gutting the
14th amendment, then that protection would have been automatically
incorporated to the states.
RD Thompson
wrote:
>In article <8kdngk$d...@btc3.up.net>, David E. Young <dey...@up.net> wrote:
>>Stilt Man wrote in message <8kbld6$51a$1...@user2.teleport.com>...
>>SM:
>>>No, that was an observation of what the militia was comprised of at the time
>>>the Constitution was written. In _obvious_ terms, the Court was not adopting
>>>that as a statement of what the militia _always_ will be, or else Miller and
>>>Layton would have won their case.
>
>>>The simple fact is, they didn't.
>
>>DY: So, TPG readers would like to know exactly when Miller and Layton were
>>convicted of violating the law they had been charged with. When was that?
>
>>Whoops, they were never convicted? So perhaps one might say that they won?
>
>In other words, you're praying you're right or that I at least can't prove
>otherwise. Unfortunately, your prayers in all cases are in vain.
>
>Jack Miller was found dead on April 6, 1939, of four gunshot wounds from a .38.
>His .45 caliber pistol, from which he had fired three shots in his defense,
>was found near his body. As he had turned state's evidence in several
>previous gang-committed bank robbery cases in which he had taken part, it is
>likely that his former partners in crime caught up to him. This took place
>prior to the Supreme Court decision that bears his name.
>
>Frank Layton, after the decision, pleaded guilty to the charge of transporting
>a shotgun with a barrel of less than eighteen inches' length across state lines
>without an NFA registration, and was placed on five years' probation by Judge
>Heartsill Ragon on January 8, 1940. He was discharged from probation on
>January 29, 1944.
>
>It's _abundantly_ clear that they lost the case.
And that information is from where? What is your cite? I am
interested in finding out more about it.
Chris Meissen
<san...@azstarnet.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 06 Jul 2000 05:03:11 GMT, jd...@jdege.visi.com (Jeffrey C.
>Dege) wrote:
>>The farmers at Concord were authorized by the Continental Congress? Not
>>hardly.
>
>The early patriots in the Revolutionary War were under the aegis of
>the First Continental Congress and the Articles of Confederation not
>the Constitution which was written *after* the War.
The early patriots were little more than a nation of relatively
disorganized locals all fed up with the excesses of their rightful
government -- the government of Britain, its monarch King George III,
and his various governors and generals. The militia of Concord, the
militia of Lexington, of Boston, and of a thousand other colonials
towns was nothing more or less than the local townspeople who brought
their own arms to Sunday drill. Until the Declaration of Independence
formalized the rebellion, those militia were, officially, answerable
to the governors of their colony or state, governors appointed by the
King of England.
[ . . . ]
>The point was that militias (as they are referred to in the
>Constitution) are not private little armies completely and only
>controlled by some dude with a funny hat who likes to camp out on
>weekends, shoot paintguns and hates the government.
No, they were the friends, neighbors, merchants, and laborers of the
local village who kept their arms near at hand and, as deToqueville
wrote, dropped what they were doing to grab those arms when the hue
and cry was raised.
But there were some others who did act as private armies, well, navies
actually. They are even recognized in the main body of the
Constitution. See Article I, section 8, where Congress is granted the
power to, among other things, "...declare war, grant letters of marque
and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and
water;..." In case your public school revisionist education didn't
cover this issue, a letter of marque or reprisal was official
authorization given to privateers to engage in acts of war against the
vessels of enemy nations. A privateer, as defined by my Webster's
Unabridged dictionary, is "1. a ship or vessel of war owned and
equipped by one or more private persons and licensed by a government
to seize or plunder the ships of an enemy in war; 2. a commander or
crew member of a privateer." In short, the world of that time took
for granted that private individuals could and did own and equip their
own privately owned vessels with the cannon and other weapons of war
needed to engage in naval warfare. If cannon could be privately
owned, how much more so simple rifles and muskets?
>Sleep well tonight.....
I shall.
Stilt Man
>>Frank Layton, after the decision, pleaded guilty to the charge...
>>It's _abundantly_ clear that they lost the case.
[minor slashing of my own statement of the facts]
>And that information is from where? What is your cite? I am
>interested in finding out more about it.
I got this from the Bardwell site, which has a collection of various documents
from the case on it, including HTML copies of the forms filled out for various
court papers, the indictment, the probation papers on Layton, etc. The URL
of this site is...
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/
There is a huge list of federal and state court decisions here, as well as
numerous explanations of federal law surrounding the National Firearms Act,
the Gun Control Act of 1968, and various other court briefs and papers. It's
easily the best site on the Web that I know of if you want to do research on
gun-related case law.