NRA Lies About 2nd Amendment
Sarah67882
The 2nd amendment begins with "A Well Regulated Militia, necessary for the
security of a free state, ...."
Note the words WELL REGULATED.
Yet the NRA opposes all regulation and laws applying to members and gun owners.
This is in direct violation of the 2nd amendment. It attacks President
Clinton, Vice President Gore and any others that dare to confront them. The
organization has become a haven for anti-government radicals, racists and other
disturbed individuals.
Our forefathers must have been concerned as to what groups became militias or
they would not have included the words "well regulated".
The NRA has become the true violator of the 2nd amendment and the real threat
to our free state's security.
George Cummins
Sarah67882 wrote:
>
> The NRA says it is defending the Constitution but look who's violating it.
>
> The 2nd amendment begins with "A Well Regulated Militia, necessary for the
> security of a free state, ...."
>
> Note the words WELL REGULATED.
Note the words "the right of the people"...
Go away troll.
jack
Enemies of freedom deserve to be raped and butchered.
Robert Frenchu
>The NRA says it is defending the Constitution but look who's violating it.
>
>The 2nd amendment begins with "A Well Regulated Militia, necessary for the
>security of a free state, ...."
>
>Note the words WELL REGULATED.
"Well regulated" means that the government is supposed to supply us
all with full auto weapons, training, and all the ammo we can
practice with.
I'll be waiting for the call to tell me where I can pick it up.
BWAH ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
--
If my "assault rifle" makes me a criminal
And my encryption program makes me a terrorist
Does Dianne Feinstein's vagina make her a prostitute?
Caruso
"Sarah67882" <sarah...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000531182412...@ng-cg1.aol.com...
> The NRA says it is defending the Constitution but look who's violating it.
>
> The 2nd amendment begins with "A Well Regulated Militia, necessary for the
> security of a free state, ...."
>
> Note the words WELL REGULATED.
>
Carman
jack <hl1...@gs.verio.net> wrote in message
news:a6iZ4.15185$5k2....@dfw-read.news.verio.net...
> Sounds like another verminous liberal Jew gun grabbing enemy of freedom.
> Enemies of freedom deserve to be raped and butchered.
Carman wrote:
Now this sounds much more like the normal, non-clever variety
of Troll to which we have all become so accustomed. Note the
standard expressions of racism and violent fantasies while the
Troll thinks to emulate the people he has been told to fear and
loathe. Pathetic fool.
--
No one who wishes you armed
is your enemy.
No one who wishes you disarmed
is your friend.
Storm Johnson
betweentheeyes
and 1000 rounds of .223. Thank you. I always liked that term 'Well
Regulated Militia'.
"Sarah67882" <sarah...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000531182412...@ng-cg1.aol.com...
<snip>
> The 2nd amendment begins with "A Well Regulated Militia
<snip>
no one of consequence
jack <hl1...@gs.verio.net> wrote:
]Sounds like another verminous liberal Jew gun grabbing enemy of freedom.
]Enemies of freedom deserve to be raped and butchered.
Looks like another Nazi wannabe trying to foment hate against Jews. Sorry, but
pretending to be pro-gun won't gain you too many friends, jackboot.
--
|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.... |
Dale Franks
>
> The 2nd amendment begins with "A Well Regulated Militia, necessary for the
> security of a free state, ...."
>
> Note the words WELL REGULATED.
I prefer to note the entire phrase (which you misquoted): "A well-regulated
militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"...
It is a preamble to the main portion of the sentence. It does not enjoin,
nor prohibit any action. The phrase is merely a statement of fact (or
belief) that indicates briefly why the right of the people to keep and bear
arms shall not be infringed. Both Federalist and anti-Federalist writers of
the time beleived devoutly that an armed citizenry was the surest protection
against tyranny by the government. The framers of the Constitution had, in
fact, recently fought a war of independence with the world's premier
military power, whose success was almost entirely predicated on the fact
that the citizenry was armed.
>
> Yet the NRA opposes all regulation and laws applying to members and gun
owners.
> This is in direct violation of the 2nd amendment. It attacks President
> Clinton, Vice President Gore and any others that dare to confront them.
The
> organization has become a haven for anti-government radicals, racists and
other
> disturbed individuals.
>
Perhaps the NRA simply beleives that the portion of the amendment that says
"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
actually means precisely that.
> Our forefathers must have been concerned as to what groups became militias
or
> they would not have included the words "well regulated".
Our forefathers agreed unanimously that the militia would consist of the
"whole of the people". Both Federalist and anti-Federalist writers at the
time stated this explicitly, including George Mason, Thomas Jefferson, the
Federalist Farmer, James Madison, Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, et. al.
It is, in fact, literally impossible to find any support whatsoever for the
opinion that the original intent of the term "militia" meant anything other
than the whole of the citizenry. Moreover, the Supreme Court has, without
exception, accepted this meaning of the term "militia" for the past 200
years.
> The NRA has become the true violator of the 2nd amendment and the real
threat
> to our free state's security.
Considering the lack of insight your previous comments have displayed, I
doubt very seriously you are well enough informed on the matter to make this
judgment with any confidence.
Lee Harrison
da...@dalefranks.com wrote on 5/31/00 11:18 PM:
> "Sarah67882" <sarah...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20000531182412...@ng-cg1.aol.com...
>> The NRA says it is defending the Constitution but look who's violating it.
>>
>> The 2nd amendment begins with "A Well Regulated Militia, necessary for the
>> security of a free state, ...."
>>
>> Note the words WELL REGULATED.
> I prefer to note the entire phrase (which you misquoted): "A well-regulated
> militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"...
>
> It is a preamble to the main portion of the sentence. It does not enjoin,
> nor prohibit any action. The phrase is merely a statement of fact (or
> belief) that indicates briefly
The Supreme Court says the "well regulated militia" clause is as important
as the "keep and bear arms" clause.
That makes more sense than your NRA inspired rationalization.
_______________
UNITED STATES 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.'
U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, 8. 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.
[...]
"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."
The Lone Weasel
Not-So-Secret-Hideout
http://leeharrison.simplenet.com/weasel/index.html
My Weasel Board
http://leeharrison.simplenet.com/weasel/bboard.mv
Petition To Require NICS Background Checks On All Gun Sales
http://leeharrison.simplenet.com/weasel/nics.mv
Wesley Stein
The concern that the founding fathers had and caused them to make sure that this RIGHT was included in the constitution was that they feared that the government would get out of hand. They wanted the PEOPLE to be able to protect themselves. This is all found in the very words left to us in the writings of the founding fathers.
Life member of the NRA.
Sarah67882 wrote:
The NRA says it is defending the Constitution but look who's violating it.
The 2nd amendment begins with "A Well Regulated Militia, necessary for the
security of a free state, ...."
Note the words WELL REGULATED.
Yet the NRA opposes all regulation and laws applying to members and gun owners.
This is in direct violation of the 2nd amendment. It attacks President
Clinton, Vice President Gore and any others that dare to confront them. The
organization has become a haven for anti-government radicals, racists and other
disturbed individuals.
Our forefathers must have been concerned as to what groups became militias or
they would not have included the words "well regulated".
The NRA has become the true violator of the 2nd amendment and the real threat
to our free state's security.
--
-----------------------------------------------------
Click here for Free Video!!
http://www.gohip.com/free_video/
Lee Harrison
stei...@worldspy.net wrote on 6/1/00 12:51 AM:
> In the 18th century, the term "regulated" did not have the same meaning that
> it does today. Here it is used to mean that the people, who the founding
> fathers said were the militia, would have access to their guns to train and
> know how to use them well. "Regulated" meant that they could shoot straight.
Not really.
Well regulated meant that the militia was organized, armed, disciplined
according to uniform military order. Because Congress was granted the power
by the Constitution to regulate the militia, they did so in statutory law.
See the Militia Act of 1792. You boys used to extol that document as a
shining example of something or other - but if you read the statute you
become aware pretty quickly what the term "well regulated" means.
__________________
Statutes at Large, 1st Congress, 2nd Session; An Act for regulating the
Military Establishment of the United States, April 30, 1790
Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the commissioned
officers herein after mentioned, and the number of one thousand two hundred
and sixteen non-commissioned officers, privates and musicians, shall be
raised for the service of the United States, for the period of three years,
unless they should previously by law be discharged.
Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That the non-commisioned officers herein
aforesaid shall, at the time of their enlistements respectively, be
able-bodied men, not under five feet six inches in height, without shoes;
nor under the age of eighteen, nor above the age of forty-six years old.
[...]
Sec. 16. And be it further enacted, That for the purpose of aiding the
troops now in service, or to be raised by this act, in protecting the
inhabitants of the frontiers of the United States, the President is hereby
authorized to call into service from time to time such part of the militia
of the states respectively, as he may judge necessary for the purpose
aforesaid; and that their pay and subsistence while in service, be the same
as the pay and subsistence of the troops above mentioned, and shall be
subject to the rules and articles of war.
Albert Isham
says...
>
>
>It is, in fact, literally impossible to find any support whatsoever for the
>opinion that the original intent of the term "militia" meant anything other
>than the whole of the citizenry. Moreover, the Supreme Court has, without
>exception, accepted this meaning of the term "militia" for the past 200
>years.
>
I'm glad you mentioned the Supreme Court. In Maryland v. U.S., 381 U.S. 41
(1965), the Supreme Court unequivocally stated that "the National Guard is the
modern militia."
--
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
"By constantly harping on the theme that the Constitution is under fire, the
NRA incites hatred and violence. While insisting that it stands for law and
order, the NRA foments anarchy and chaos."
Jack Anderson in "Inside the NRA"
James F. Mayer
> >
> >
>
> >It is, in fact, literally impossible to find any support whatsoever for the
> >opinion that the original intent of the term "militia" meant anything other
> >than the whole of the citizenry. Moreover, the Supreme Court has, without
> >exception, accepted this meaning of the term "militia" for the past 200
> >years.
> >
> I'm glad you mentioned the Supreme Court. In Maryland v. U.S., 381 U.S. 41
> (1965), the Supreme Court unequivocally stated that "the National Guard is the
> modern militia."
Since the National Guard is a reserve component of the regular Army, they
cannot be the militia of the Second Amendment.
> --
> """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
> "By constantly harping on the theme that the Constitution is under fire, the
> NRA incites hatred and violence. While insisting that it stands for law and
> order, the NRA foments anarchy and chaos."
> Jack Anderson in "Inside the NRA"
>
>
>
Jack Anderson has never been "Inside the NRA" and is nothing more
than a hack journalist with a grudge.
James F. Mayer
> stei...@worldspy.net wrote on 6/1/00 12:51 AM:
>
> > In the 18th century, the term "regulated" did not have the same meaning that
> > it does today. Here it is used to mean that the people, who the founding
> > fathers said were the militia, would have access to their guns to train and
> > know how to use them well. "Regulated" meant that they could shoot straight.
>
> Not really.
>
Yes it did.
James F. Mayer
> da...@dalefranks.com wrote on 5/31/00 11:18 PM:
>
> > "Sarah67882" <sarah...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:20000531182412...@ng-cg1.aol.com...
> >>
> >> The 2nd amendment begins with "A Well Regulated Militia, necessary for the
> >> security of a free state, ...."
> >>
> >> Note the words WELL REGULATED.
>
> > militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"...
> >
> > It is a preamble to the main portion of the sentence. It does not enjoin,
> > nor prohibit any action. The phrase is merely a statement of fact (or
> > belief) that indicates briefly
>
> The Supreme Court says the "well regulated militia" clause is as important
> as the "keep and bear arms" clause.
>
> That makes more sense than your NRA inspired rationalization.
>
And when they showed up, they were to be already armed with their own guns.
"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."
> _______________
>
> UNITED STATES 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.'
> U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, 8. 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.
>
> [...]
>
> "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."
>
>
>
James F. Mayer
> says...
> >
> >
>
> >It is, in fact, literally impossible to find any support whatsoever for the
> >opinion that the original intent of the term "militia" meant anything other
> >than the whole of the citizenry. Moreover, the Supreme Court has, without
> >exception, accepted this meaning of the term "militia" for the past 200
> >years.
> >
> I'm glad you mentioned the Supreme Court. In Maryland v. U.S., 381 U.S. 41
> (1965), the Supreme Court unequivocally stated that "the National Guard is the
> modern militia."
They also said that;
UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
... 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."
> --
NASCAR
>The NRA says it is defending the Constitution but look who's violating it.
>
>The 2nd amendment begins with "A Well Regulated Militia, necessary for the
>security of a free state, ...."
>
>Note the words WELL REGULATED.
Which especially at the time of the writing meant good working order.
Hence the Regulator Clock, contrary to your beliefs the Regulator
Clock company sold to anyone not just the National Guard (which didn't
exist at the time).
>
>Yet the NRA opposes all regulation and laws applying to members and gun owners.
>This is in direct violation of the 2nd amendment. It attacks President
>Clinton, Vice President Gore and any others that dare to confront them. The
>organization has become a haven for anti-government radicals, racists and other
>disturbed individuals.
>
>Our forefathers must have been concerned as to what groups became militias or
>they would not have included the words "well regulated".
You don't read much do you?
NASCAR
wrote:
>Sounds like another verminous liberal Jew gun grabbing enemy of freedom.
>Enemies of freedom deserve to be raped and butchered.
>
>
You are an idiot, I think your mommy is calling. Turn off the computer
and finish your homework.
Che'Gu Maru
So you think Jews deserve to be raped and butchered? You serve one stellar
purpose, being a light showing every Jew and minority why the Second
Amendment is so important, and why they need to own and carry a gun (so they
can blow you away when you show up on their doorstep with your spray can).
antisdolie
Lee Harrison <lee...@amaonline.com> wrote:
> The Supreme Court says the "well regulated militia" clause is as
> important as the "keep and bear arms" clause.
They did?
Your own sig refutes you.
> 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."
Lee would have you believe the "body of citizens" could have their
arms, especially those "in common [military] use at the time" banned by
the government during the times they are NOT called for duty.
Jim
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
antisdolie
ais...@ne.infi.net (Albert Isham) wrote:
> I'm glad you mentioned the Supreme Court. In Maryland v. U.S., 381
> U.S. 41 (1965), the Supreme Court unequivocally stated that "the
> National Guard is the modern militia."
Who gives a rat's ass, Ishy, what they consider the MODERN militia to
be. Original intent is what matters, and originally, and according to
US Code, the militia is the general citizenry.
Scout
"Lee Harrison" <lee...@amaonline.com> wrote in message
news:B55B8376.213D%lee...@amaonline.com...
> in article 393623B7...@worldspy.net, Wesley Stein at
> stei...@worldspy.net wrote on 6/1/00 12:51 AM:
>
> > In the 18th century, the term "regulated" did not have the same meaning
that
> > it does today. Here it is used to mean that the people, who the
founding
> > fathers said were the militia, would have access to their guns to train
and
> > know how to use them well. "Regulated" meant that they could shoot
straight.
>
> Not really.
>
> according to uniform military order. Because Congress was granted the
power
> by the Constitution to regulate the militia, they did so in statutory law.
Several points, which I know Lee will ignore, but others might find
interesting.
1) No where is Congress given to be the EXCLUSIVE source of uniform military
order. I note that Lee has admitted that I am a member of a well regulated
militia despite no involvement from Congress
2) Congress was granted the power to provide those uniform military
standards, not to regulate the militia
3) Congress' exercise of that power is such that EVERYONE is well regulated
since they meet all the requirements of the standards established
4) I also not that Congress is prohibited from disarming the militia, which
also means that Constitutionally they are REQUIRED to provide uniform
military order to ANYONE that wants it. Since otherwise they would be
disarming the militia by failing to provide for the militia as required of
them by the Constitution.
5) The right of those in a well regulated militia HAS been infringed by
federal law, rules and regulations
6) The right in the 2nd is recognized to belong to the people, not just the
well regulated militia, so the whole argument over the context of the
militia is irrelevant to the primary issue of the Constitutionality of gun
control
Lee Harrison
jf...@mindspring.com wrote on 6/1/00 5:38 AM:
>> The Supreme Court says the "well regulated militia" clause is as important
>> as the "keep and bear arms" clause.
>>
>> That makes more sense than your NRA inspired rationalization.
> And when they showed up, they were to be already armed with their own guns.
>
> "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."
That quote refers to the Militia Act of 1792 which required the enrolled
militia members to buy their own guns and ammunition, "and that from and
after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets for arming the
militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the
eighteenth part of a pound..."
Congress just used its power to arm the militia by making the militia
members pay for their own guns, and within five years to have standard bore
guns.
To repeat - they brought their own guns because the Militia Act of 1792 made
them buy guns of standard caliber, and it was such an unpopular law that by
the 1830s states created the unorganized militia so citizens could legally
evade militia service - the unorganized militia had no duties or
responsibilities.
_________________
IF MEMBERSHIP IN THE UNORGANIZED MILITIA PROVIDED A SECOND AMENDMENT RKBA
In 1997, there were 267,800,000 Americans according to the 1998 Statistical
Abstract.
65,613,000 were 16 years and under. 85,570,000 were 46 years and older.
That means most Americans - 151,183,000 - would not be eligible for
membership in the unorganized militia just because of age.
There were about 11,097,000 disabled and blind persons in America in
1997, not counting persons over 65 years old. So these people would also
not be eligible for membership in the unorganized militia, and would have no
right to keep and bear arms.
The total of Americans disqualified for militia membership for being too
young, too old, or disabled would be 162,280,000. Then there are the
exempted persons, and that varies slightly from state to state.
162,280,000 Americans would have no right to keep and bear arms, if
membership in the unorganized militia were protected by the Second
Amendment.
That would be about 61% of Americans who would have no RKBA.
But according to U.S. v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016 (8th Cir. 1992), there's no
Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for members of the unorganized
militia:
[begin excerpt]
Since the Miller decision, no federal court has found any individual's
possession of a military weapon to be "reasonably related to a well
regulated militia." "Technical" membership in a state militia (e.g.,
membership in an "unorganized" state militia) or membership in a
non-governmental military organization is not sufficient to satisfy the
"reasonable relationship" test. Oakes, 564 F.2d at 387. Membership in a
hypothetical or "sedentary" militia is likewise insufficient. See Warin,
530 F.2d 103.
[end excerpt]
Lee Harrison
da...@dalefranks.com wrote on 6/1/00 6:36 PM:
> Perhaps your contradiction of my statement might have more force if you
> referred to a constitutional writing that referred to the phrase in
> question, rather than referring to Art 1, Sec 8.
A Supreme Court opinion on the Second Amendment is the most authoritative
writing about the Constitution besides the Constitution itself.
_______________
UNITED STATES 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.'
U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, 8. 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.
[...]
"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."
The Lone Weasel
Lee Harrison
jf...@mindspring.com wrote on 6/1/00 6:02 AM:
> They also said that;
>
> UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
>
> ... 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."
Glad you read a few words of my sigfile, Weenieboy. Here's more:
UNITED STATES 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.'
U.S.C.A. Const. art. 1, 8. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation
Michael Dix
Tort Claims Act. The court decided that National Guard members
are state employees unless and until they are called into
federal service. The court did not rule on who was and who
was not in the militia.
The more recent Perpich v. Department of Defense 496 U.S. 334 (1990)
rules that the National Guard is first and foremost a reserve unit of
the Army:
...
The Governor argues that this interpretation of the Militia Clauses has
the practical effect of nullifying an important state
power that is expressly reserved in the Constitution. We disagree. It
merely recognizes the supremacy of federal
power in the area of military affairs. 22 The Federal Government
provides virtually all of the funding, the material, and
the leadership for the State Guard units. The Minnesota unit, which
includes about 13,000 members, is affected only
slightly when a few dozen, or at most a few hundred, soldiers are
ordered into active service for brief periods of time.
23 Neither the State's basic training responsibility, nor its ability to
rely on its own Guard in state emergency situations,
is significantly affected. Indeed, if the federal training mission were
to interfere with the State Guard's capacity to
respond to local emergencies, the Montgomery Amendment would permit the
Governor to veto the proposed mission.
24 Moreover, [496 U.S. 334, 352] Congress has provided by statute that
in addition to its National Guard, a State may
provide and maintain at its own expense a defense force that is exempt
from being drafted into the Armed Forces of
the United States. See 32 U.S.C. 109(c). As long as that provision
remains in effect, there is no basis for an argument
that the federal statutory scheme deprives Minnesota of any
constitutional entitlement to a separate militia of its own.
25 [496 U.S. 334, 353]
...
Mike Dix
Albert Isham wrote:
>
> In article <rmmZ4.266955$8k3.2...@news1.rdc1.sdca.home.com>, Dale Franks
> says...
> >
> >
>
> >It is, in fact, literally impossible to find any support whatsoever for the
> >opinion that the original intent of the term "militia" meant anything other
> >than the whole of the citizenry. Moreover, the Supreme Court has, without
> >exception, accepted this meaning of the term "militia" for the past 200
> >years.
> >
Michael Dix
the armed forces.
Mike Dix
Lee Harrison wrote:
>
> in article 393623B7...@worldspy.net, Wesley Stein at
> stei...@worldspy.net wrote on 6/1/00 12:51 AM:
>
> > In the 18th century, the term "regulated" did not have the same meaning that
> > it does today. Here it is used to mean that the people, who the founding
> > fathers said were the militia, would have access to their guns to train and
> > know how to use them well. "Regulated" meant that they could shoot straight.
>
> Not really.
>
> Well regulated meant that the militia was organized, armed, disciplined
> according to uniform military order. Because Congress was granted the power
> by the Constitution to regulate the militia, they did so in statutory law.
>
Michael Dix
PERPICH says that Minnesota is free to organize a state militia,
separate from the National Guard. (The National Guard is
first and foremost an Army Reserve unit.)
Of course, they would have to recruit its members from the
ranks of the unorganized militia in Minn.
MD
Lee Harrison wrote:
>
> >> Statutes at Large, 1st Congress, 2nd Session; An Act for regulating the
> >> Military Establishment of the United States, April 30, 1790
> >>
> >> Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of
> >> the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the commissioned
> >> officers herein after mentioned, and the number of one thousand two hundred
> >> and sixteen non-commissioned officers, privates and musicians, shall be
> >> raised for the service of the United States, for the period of three years,
> >> unless they should previously by law be discharged.
> >>
> >> Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That the non-commisioned officers herein
> >> aforesaid shall, at the time of their enlistements respectively, be
> >> able-bodied men, not under five feet six inches in height, without shoes;
> >> nor under the age of eighteen, nor above the age of forty-six years old.
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> Sec. 16. And be it further enacted, That for the purpose of aiding the
> >> troops now in service, or to be raised by this act, in protecting the
> >> inhabitants of the frontiers of the United States, the President is hereby
> >> authorized to call into service from time to time such part of the militia
> >> of the states respectively, as he may judge necessary for the purpose
> >> aforesaid; and that their pay and subsistence while in service, be the same
> >> as the pay and subsistence of the troops above mentioned, and shall be
> >> subject to the rules and articles of war.
>
> > It is not too remarkable that militia members can be drafted into
> > the armed forces.
>
> The militia was federalized, not drafted into the regular army. That's
> still how they do it - the militia, which is the National Guard, is
> federalized when the president or congress calls it out; they still get the
> same pay as the regular Armed Forces.
>
> Maybe you're confusing the militia of the United States - the Army National
> Guard of the US and the Air National Guard of the US - with the Army, Air
> Force, Naval, Marine and Coast Guard Reserves.
>
> See 10 USC 10101.
>
> See also:
>
> "10 USC 10103. Basic policy for order into Federal service
>
> "Whenever Congress determines that more units and organizations are needed
> for the national security than are in the regular components of the ground
> and air forces, the Army National Guard of the United States and the Air
> National Guard of the United States, or such parts of them as are needed,
> together with units of other reserve components necessary for a balanced
> force, shall be ordered to active duty and retained as long as so needed."
>
> _________________
>
> "It is said that Congress should not possess the power of calling out the
> militia, to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel
> invasions; nor the President have the command of them when called out for
> such purposes.
>
> "I believe any gentleman, who possesses military experience, will reform you
> that men without a uniformity of arms, accoutrements, and discipline, are no
> more than a mob in a camp; that, in the field, instead of assisting, they
> interfere with one another. If a soldier drops his musket, and his
> companion, unfurnished with one, takes it up, it is of no service, because
> his cartridges do not fit it. By means of this system, a uniformity of arms
> and discipline will prevail throughout the United States."
>
> The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal
> Constitution (Elliot's Debates). THE DEBATES IN THE CONVENTION OF THE STATE
> OF PENNSYLVANIA, ON THE ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. p. 521, James
> Wilson speaking.
>
> http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwed.html
>
Dale Franks
referred to a constitutional writing that referred to the phrase in
question, rather than referring to Art 1, Sec 8.
"Lee Harrison" <lee...@amaonline.com> wrote in message
news:B55B6385.20F6%lee...@amaonline.com...
> in article rmmZ4.266955$8k3.2...@news1.rdc1.sdca.home.com, Dale Franks
at
> da...@dalefranks.com wrote on 5/31/00 11:18 PM:
>
> > "Sarah67882" <sarah...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:20000531182412...@ng-cg1.aol.com...
> >> The NRA says it is defending the Constitution but look who's violating
it.
> >>
> >> The 2nd amendment begins with "A Well Regulated Militia, necessary for
the
> >> security of a free state, ...."
> >>
> >> Note the words WELL REGULATED.
>
> > I prefer to note the entire phrase (which you misquoted): "A
well-regulated
> > militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"...
> >
> > It is a preamble to the main portion of the sentence. It does not
enjoin,
> > nor prohibit any action. The phrase is merely a statement of fact (or
> > belief) that indicates briefly
>
> The Supreme Court says the "well regulated militia" clause is as important
> as the "keep and bear arms" clause.
>
> That makes more sense than your NRA inspired rationalization.
>
> _______________
>
> UNITED STATES 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.'
> U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, 8. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation
Randy Sweeney
>That quote refers to the Militia Act of 1792 which required the enrolled
>militia members to buy their own guns and ammunition, "and that from and
>after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets for arming the
>militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of
the
>eighteenth part of a pound..."
>
>Congress just used its power to arm the militia by making the militia
>members pay for their own guns, and within five years to have standard bore
>guns.
>
>To repeat - they brought their own guns because the Militia Act of 1792
made
>them buy guns of standard caliber, and it was such an unpopular law that by
>the 1830s states created the unorganized militia so citizens could legally
>evade militia service - the unorganized militia had no duties or
>responsibilities.
So Lee... where does this imply that congress has the power to disarm the
people?
Lee Harrison
sc...@monumental.com wrote on 6/1/00 1:08 PM:
> Several points, which I know Lee will ignore, but others might find
> interesting.
>
> 1) No where is Congress given to be the EXCLUSIVE source of uniform military
> order.
Yes, Congress is given the power to organize and discipline the militia; the
states are empowered to appoint officers and train the troops.
Maybe you've heard of a little number called Title 32 of the U.S. Code.
> I note that Lee has admitted that I am a member of a well regulated
> militia despite no involvement from Congress
I admit you whine about it all the time, but I have no way of verifying your
claims, and in fact I posted the section of Virginia Code that explained
why, if you really are in the VA SDF, you may not play with guns.
> 2) Congress was granted the power to provide those uniform military
> standards, not to regulate the militia
Better take a look at Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15-16, Snout. Your
fantasies about what the Constitution says have taken wing again.
> 3) Congress' exercise of that power is such that EVERYONE is well regulated
> since they meet all the requirements of the standards established
Wrong.
> 4) I also not that Congress is prohibited from disarming the militia, which
> also means that Constitutionally they are REQUIRED to provide uniform
> military order to ANYONE that wants it.
Wrong.
> Since otherwise they would be
> disarming the militia by failing to provide for the militia as required of
> them by the Constitution.
Wrong.
> 5) The right of those in a well regulated militia HAS been infringed by
> federal law, rules and regulations
Can you describe the infringement?
> 6) The right in the 2nd is recognized to belong to the people, not just the
> well regulated militia, so the whole argument over the context of the
> militia is irrelevant to the primary issue of the Constitutionality of gun
> control
Unfortunately, Snout, you haven't reconciled your fictional interpretation
of the Constitution with the Supreme Court.
No prize for you!
Lee Harrison
on 6/1/00 8:12 PM:
> Maryland v. United States is narrowly focussed on the Federal
> Tort Claims Act. The court decided that National Guard members
> are state employees unless and until they are called into
> federal service. The court did not rule on who was and who
> was not in the militia.
>
> The more recent Perpich v. Department of Defense 496 U.S. 334 (1990)
> rules that the National Guard is first and foremost a reserve unit of
> the Army:
PERPICH v. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, 496 U.S. 334 (1990)
"Two conflicting themes, developed at the Constitutional Convention and
repeated in debates over military policy during the next century, led to a
compromise in the text of the Constitution and in later statutory
enactments. On the one hand, there was a widespread fear that a national
standing Army posed an intolerable threat to individual liberty and to the
sovereignty of the separate States,5 while, on the other hand, there was a
recognition of the danger of relying on inadequately trained soldiers as the
primary means of providing for the common defense.6 Thus, Congress was
authorized both to raise and support a national Army and also to organize
"the Militia." [496 U.S. 334, 341]
"In the early years of the Republic, Congress did neither. In 1792, it did
pass a statute that purported to establish "an Uniform Militia throughout
the United States," but its detailed command that every able-bodied male
citizen between the ages of 18 and 45 be enrolled therein and equip himself
with appropriate weaponry7 was virtually ignored for more than a century,
during which time the militia proved to be a decidedly unreliable fighting
force.8 The statute was finally repealed in 1901.9 It was in that year that
President Theodore Roosevelt declared: "Our militia law is obsolete and
worthless."10 The process of transforming "the National [496 U.S. 334, 342]
Guard of the several States" into an effective fighting force then began.
"The Dick Act divided the class of able-bodied male citizens between 18 and
45 years of age into an "organized militia" to be known as the National
Guard of the several States, and the remainder of which was then described
as the "reserve militia," and which later statutes have termed the
"unorganized militia." The statute created a table of organization for the
National Guard conforming to that of the Regular Army, and provided that
federal funds and Regular Army instructors should be used to train its
members.11 It is undisputed that Congress was acting pursuant to the Militia
Clauses of the Constitution in passing the Dick Act."
Lee Harrison
Bama Brian
TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A - General Military Law
PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA
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.
--
Cheers,
Bama Brian
NRA Life
GOA Life
Libertarian
Voting for the lesser of two evils is STILL voting for an evil.
Vote Libertarian. You'll be glad you did.
.
"Albert Isham" <ais...@ne.infi.net> wrote in message
news:8h5cvl$e5a$1...@nw001t.infi.net...
> In article <rmmZ4.266955$8k3.2...@news1.rdc1.sdca.home.com>, Dale
Franks
> says...
> >
> >
>
> >It is, in fact, literally impossible to find any support whatsoever for
the
> >opinion that the original intent of the term "militia" meant anything
other
> >than the whole of the citizenry. Moreover, the Supreme Court has,
without
> >exception, accepted this meaning of the term "militia" for the past 200
> >years.
> >
> I'm glad you mentioned the Supreme Court. In Maryland v. U.S., 381 U.S.
41
> (1965), the Supreme Court unequivocally stated that "the National Guard is
the
> modern militia."
Oh, yoohoo, Mr. Albert, here's the appropriate reference for you:
TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A - General Military Law
PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA
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.
Diddums wittle Albie have a point?
--
Cheers,
Bama Brian
NRA Life
GOA Life
Libertarian
Voting for the lesser of two evils is STILL voting for an evil.
Vote Libertarian. You'll be glad you did.
James F. Mayer
> jf...@mindspring.com wrote on 6/1/00 5:38 AM:
>
> >> The Supreme Court says the "well regulated militia" clause is as important
> >> as the "keep and bear arms" clause.
> >>
> >> That makes more sense than your NRA inspired rationalization.
>
> >
> > appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at
> > the time."
>
> militia members to buy their own guns and ammunition,
Then it was required that individuals own guns and bring them when called.
"and that from and
> after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets for arming the
> militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the
> eighteenth part of a pound..."
>
So that the members could use the ammunition of other members if necessary.
> Congress just used its power to arm the militia by making the militia
> members pay for their own guns,
Thus they individually owned their guns and could take them home
with them.
and within five years to have standard bore
> guns.
>
So that the government could provide uniform ammunition from a
common source.
Mort
to
> appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use
at
> the time."
>
>
>
As usual, you quote the bits you like and leave out the bits you do not -
the bits that prove you are a liar.
You keep bringing out the same tired paragraph or two - despite the fact
that other parts of the SAME decision have been posted and shot you down.
-*MORT*-
Lee Harrison
fin...@ispchannel.com wrote on 6/2/00 7:28 AM:
> As usual, you quote the bits you like and leave out the bits you do not -
> the bits that prove you are a liar.
No, pretty much all the bits prove that you don't have any Second Amendment
right to have guns apart from militia service, and then under coniditions
specified by the Miller opinion.
> You keep bringing out the same tired paragraph or two - despite the fact
> that other parts of the SAME decision have been posted and shot you down.
What parts would those be? Let's discuss them in detail.
_________________
Federal Prosecutor's brief in US v. Emerson to the US Court of Appeals,
Fifth District.
http://www.saf.org/EmersonAppealGovt1.html
Federal Prosecutor's reply brief filed January 27, 2000.
http://www.saf.org/Emersongovtrepl.html
Defense Brief in US v. Emerson to the US Court of Appeals, Fifth District.
http://www.saf.org/EmersonMainBrief.html
Randy Sweeney
Lee Harrison wrote in message ...
your
>claims, and in fact I posted the section of Virginia Code that explained
>why, if you really are in the VA SDF, you may not play with guns.
Except when the Governor of VA authorizes them to train with their
weapons.... and the history of this law arrises precisely because some unit
commanders were "playing" with guns.
James F. Mayer
> >
> > appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at
> > the time."
>
Take your name-calling and shove it where the sun doesn't shine !!!!
Randy Sweeney
Lee Harrison wrote in message ...
>The militia was federalized, not drafted into the regular army. That's
>still how they do it - the militia, which is the National Guard, is
>federalized when the president or congress calls it out; they still get the
>same pay as the regular Armed Forces.
>
>Maybe you're confusing the militia of the United States - the Army National
>Guard of the US and the Air National Guard of the US - with the Army, Air
>Force, Naval, Marine and Coast Guard Reserves.
Easy to confuse Lee, since the NG and the Reserve are one and the same.
You can't be in the NG unless you are also in the Reserve. That's why they
call it the Army Reserve National Guard.
Randy Sweeney
Lee Harrison wrote in message ...
>on 6/2/00 12:13 AM:
>
>> No National Guard in 1790, therefore this Act cannot refer to it.
>
>of the Constitution in passing the Dick Act."
But the National Guard today is far removed legally from its origins in the
Dick Act.
It is very clear today that the current guard is funded, operated, manned
and led as the part of the US Army and Air Force Reserve.
Perpich lost his case for this very reason. The Guard is the Reserve, not
the militia and is not bound by militia law.
Jeffrey C. Dege
>
>Easy to confuse Lee, since the NG and the Reserve are one and the same.
Not exactly. There are real legal differences.
>You can't be in the NG unless you are also in the Reserve. That's why they
>call it the Army Reserve National Guard.
But you can be in the Reserve without being in the National Guard.
National Guard officers hold two commissions, a state commission and a
Reserve Army commission. An officer in the Army Reserve Troop Program
Unit (that part of the Reserve that drills once a month), does not hold
a state commission.
A NG unit can be activated to state duty, a Reserve unit cannot. A member
of a Reserve unit can be called to active duty by the Army, a member of a
NG cannot. (That is, the Department of the Army can pluck an individual
member of a Reserve unit and call him to active duty as an individual.
The DA can activate a NG unit, and call it to Federal service, but it
cannot activate an individual member).
--
.sig under construction
Scout
> still how they do it - the militia, which is the National Guard,
Here Lee lies and denies the very language of 10USC311.
Further it should be noted that the National Guard is a reserve component of
the US Army.
> is
> federalized when the president or congress calls it out; they still get
the
> same pay as the regular Armed Forces.
>
> Maybe you're confusing the militia of the United States - the Army
National
> Guard of the US and the Air National Guard of the US
Sorry, but while these are PART of the militia of the United States, they
are not the full exitent of that militia, but the Lee knows this and lies
about it.
> - with the Army, Air
> Force, Naval, Marine and Coast Guard Reserves.
Please note that the Army National Guard is part of the Army Reserves, and
the Air National Guard is part of the Air Force reserves,
Scout
> in article 8UDZ4.2979$HD6....@iad-read.news.verio.net, Scout at
> sc...@monumental.com wrote on 6/1/00 1:08 PM:
>
> > Several points, which I know Lee will ignore, but others might find
> > interesting.
> >
> > 1) No where is Congress given to be the EXCLUSIVE source of uniform
military
> > order.
>
> Yes, Congress is given the power to organize and discipline the militia;
the
> states are empowered to appoint officers and train the troops.
>
> Maybe you've heard of a little number called Title 32 of the U.S. Code.
Yes, I have, and it in no manner refutes my arguement above. Even if it did,
which it does not, it would have to comply with the Constitution. Now, since
it's clear that Lee can NOT produce a creditable souorce that Congress is
given the EXCLUSIVE power to provide uniform military order, by point
stands.
> > I note that Lee has admitted that I am a member of a well regulated
> > militia despite no involvement from Congress
>
> I admit you whine about it all the time, but I have no way of verifying
your
> claims, and in fact I posted the section of Virginia Code that explained
> why, if you really are in the VA SDF, you may not play with guns.
No, I may not USE guns as part of my active duties unless authoized, that in
no manner addresses my OWNERSHIP of the same, or my use of them while off
duty.
Further shall I repeat your own words back to you Lee?
You did make this admission, further I offered to supply you with whatever
proof you required, you defered and weren't interested.
> > 2) Congress was granted the power to provide those uniform military
> > standards, not to regulate the militia
>
> Better take a look at Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15-16, Snout. Your
> fantasies about what the Constitution says have taken wing again.
Sorry, it says nothing about the power to regulate the militia. It states
that Congress can provide for certain aspects to provide for such
regulation, but provide for is not the same as mandating regulation.
> > 3) Congress' exercise of that power is such that EVERYONE is well
regulated
> > since they meet all the requirements of the standards established
>
> Wrong.
No it's true, by the standards currently set by Congress for the militia,
everyone meets those requirements, by your own arguement this means they are
well regulated.
> > 4) I also not that Congress is prohibited from disarming the militia,
which
> > also means that Constitutionally they are REQUIRED to provide uniform
> > military order to ANYONE that wants it.
>
> Wrong.
No, it's true. If the Congress is the source of regulation, and Congress can
not disarm the militia, then it would be required for them to supply such
regulation to prevent the militia from being disarmed.
You can't have it both ways Lee.
> > Since otherwise they would be
> > disarming the militia by failing to provide for the militia as required
of
> > them by the Constitution.
>
> Wrong.
No, it's true.
You seem to have entered a period of utter denial.
> > 5) The right of those in a well regulated militia HAS been infringed by
> > federal law, rules and regulations
>
> Can you describe the infringement?
CGA '34, CGA '68, Brady, Assult Weapons, Crime Bill, all infringe upon the
right of the well regulated militia, nevermind the rights of the people.
> > 6) The right in the 2nd is recognized to belong to the people, not just
the
> > well regulated militia, so the whole argument over the context of the
> > militia is irrelevant to the primary issue of the Constitutionality of
gun
> > control
>
> Unfortunately, Snout, you haven't reconciled your fictional interpretation
> of the Constitution with the Supreme Court.
Translation: Ignore the language of what is written, and refer to some other
source.
Lee. I will note the Supreme Court has been wrong their rulings before. The
Constitution is the FINAL authority, if you can't deal witth language of
what was written, then clearly you are admitting that your arguements are
not supported by what is written, which is after all what is the binding
contract with the American people.
> No prize for you!
Well, from you I won't expect one. After all you deny anything that refutes
your claims and arguements, even when they come from your own sources. Look
at the way in which you utterly lie and misrepresent 10USC311.
> _______________
>
> UNITED STATES 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.'
> U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, 8. 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.
>
> [...]
>
> "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."
Everyone should please note these quotes as supplied by Lee, and then look
bcak up at #1. Then ask how Lee can possibly deny infringements enacted by
the FEDERAL government upon the ownership of arms by active enlisted members
of a well regulated militia.
I note that Lee's own source denies his claims.
Lee Harrison
jf...@mindspring.com wrote on 6/2/00 5:32 PM:
> Lee Harrison <lee...@amaonline.com> writes: > in article
> 8h5jc7$lds$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net, James F. Mayer at
>> jf...@mindspring.com wrote on 6/1/00 6:02 AM:
>>
>>> They also said that;
>>>
>>> UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
>>>
>>> ... 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."
>>
>> Glad you read a few words of my sigfile, Weenieboy. Here's more:
>
> Take your name-calling and shove it where the sun doesn't shine !!!!
Maybe later. Right now you need to read the truth.
And you must stop denying your wiener heritage, son.
UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a
"shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this
time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a
well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees
the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within
judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military
equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette
v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158.
"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."
The Lone Weasel
James F. Mayer
> jf...@mindspring.com wrote on 6/2/00 5:32 PM:
>
> > Lee Harrison <lee...@amaonline.com> writes: > in article
> > 8h5jc7$lds$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net, James F. Mayer at
> >> jf...@mindspring.com wrote on 6/1/00 6:02 AM:
> >>
> >>> They also said that;
> >>>
> >>> UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
> >>>
> >>> ... when called for service these men were expected to
> >>> appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at
> >>> the time."
> >>
> >> Glad you read a few words of my sigfile, Weenieboy. Here's more:
> >
> > Take your name-calling and shove it where the sun doesn't shine !!!!
>
> Maybe later.
NOW!
Right now you need to read the truth.
>
I have read the truth and you do not provide any in your posts.
> And you must stop denying your wiener heritage, son.
>
And you must stop your childish name-calling if you want anyone to
listen to you.
I converse with you no more.
Christopher Morton
<lee...@amaonline.com> wrote:
>> Take your name-calling and shove it where the sun doesn't shine !!!!
>
>Maybe later. Right now you need to read the truth.
He won't get it from you, you inbred, racist thug.
---
"Okay Chrissy, you cock-sucking saucer-lipped booger-eating
monkey-fucking nigger, I hereby announce that I can say any word and
your cynical manipulation of my expression won't ever make me a racist
or a bigot. I don't give a fuck." - Lee Harrison (lha...@amaonlon.com)
Lee Harrison
jf...@mindspring.com wrote on 6/3/00 5:48 AM:
> Lee Harrison <lee...@amaonline.com> writes: > in article
> 8h9g71$n01$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net, James F. Mayer at
>> jf...@mindspring.com wrote on 6/2/00 5:32 PM:
>>
>>> Lee Harrison <lee...@amaonline.com> writes: > in article
>>> 8h5jc7$lds$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net, James F. Mayer at
>>>> jf...@mindspring.com wrote on 6/1/00 6:02 AM:
>>>>
>>>>> They also said that;
>>>>>
>>>>> UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
>>>>>
>>>>> ... 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."
>>>>
>>>> Glad you read a few words of my sigfile, Weenieboy. Here's more:
>>>
>>> Take your name-calling and shove it where the sun doesn't shine !!!!
>>
>> Maybe later.
>
> NOW!
Weenieboy's gettin' wacky out there.
>> Right now you need to read the truth.
> I have read the truth and you do not provide any in your posts.
Of course I do, Mr. Furter.
Or do you go by Frank?
>> And you must stop denying your wiener heritage, son.
> And you must stop your childish name-calling if you want anyone to
> listen to you.
If you choose to dress up as a giant tube steak, that's your business; but
I'm not going to stand by and watch our young people corrupted by a guy
traipsing around Usenet disguised as a weenie.
Sorry.
> I converse with you no more.
You don't have the guts to killfile me, Wienerjunger. I'm the only one
telling you the hard truth about wienie impersonation - sure, the wienieguys
at Oscar Mayer and Armour get millions, but a little wienie like you hasn't
a chance in the professional wienie mascot market.
I've known wienerguys - wienerguys are sworn enemies of mine - and son,
you're no Handjobber.
POINT PROVEN!
_______________
A well informed liberal being necessary to the security of a free state, the
right of the Lone Weasel to kick rightwing ass shall not be infringed.
RAY
debate over whether the NG was the militia in another way.
It said that even if the NG were to no longer be considered
a Constitutional militia, that States still have another remedy
by establishing constitutional militias of their own:
"Moreover, Congress has provided by statute that
in addition to its National Guard, a State may provide and
maintain at its own expense a defense force that is
exempt from being drafted into the Armed Forces.
As long as that providision remains in effect, there
is no basis for an argument that the federal
statutory scheme deprives Minnesota of any
constitutional entitlement to a separate militia of
its own."
RR: Thus, even setting the NG aside, States
still have the option of setting up an old-style
well-regulated militia in the framework
established by the Founding Fathers. If you
gunners want to really enjoy the guarantee
of the 2nd Amendment, I suggest you have the
NRA lobby for States to establish Defense
Forces that allow you to use your personal
guns in them.
Lee Harrison wrote:
> members.11 It is undisputed that Congress was acting pursuant to the Militia
> Clauses of the Constitution in passing the Dick Act."
>
Randy Sweeney
RAY wrote in message <39393524...@interaccess.com>...
>RR: Thus, even setting the NG aside, States
>still have the option of setting up an old-style
>well-regulated militia in the framework
>established by the Founding Fathers. If you
>gunners want to really enjoy the guarantee
>of the 2nd Amendment, I suggest you have the
>NRA lobby for States to establish Defense
>Forces that allow you to use your personal
>guns in them.
But Ray...
The Federal weapons bans prohibit citizens from owning military style
weapons as would be useful to such a militia.
Are you now opposing this infringement that you have previously supported?
RAY
RR: None of the weapons bans apply to divisions
of the States.
If you enroll in a State Defense Force that requires
you to use your private guns in the Defense Force, then
your right to have such a gun would be covered by these
exemptions.
Randy Sweeney
So... Scout is free to purchase a new M16A2?
You have a cite from the US Code for this?
RAY
RR: Despite Scout's protestations to the
contrary, the Virginia Defense Force does not
permit training with guns, neither private nor
public guns:
STANDARD NUMBER 4:
"The VaDF is not an armed force - weapons are not
carried or used for either training or active duty."
RR: I've given you this citation before Sweeney. You
must have a rotten memory.
Randy Sweeney
RAY wrote in message <39394C2E...@interaccess.com>...
>> > If you enroll in a State Defense Force that requires
>> >you to use your private guns in the Defense Force, then
>> >your right to have such a gun would be covered by these
>> >exemptions.
>>
>> So... Scout is free to purchase a new M16A2?
>> You have a cite from the US Code for this?
>
>RR: Despite Scout's protestations to the
>contrary, the Virginia Defense Force does not
>permit training with guns, neither private nor
>public guns:
> STANDARD NUMBER 4:
> "The VaDF is not an armed force - weapons are not
> carried or used for either training or active duty."
>
>RR: I've given you this citation before Sweeney. You
>must have a rotten memory.
You forgotten the rest of it... except when authorized by the governor
...who is their commander and has the power to say they have to train
without pants if he wants.
But he also has the power to tell them to report with weapons.
By VA Law, (44-1), the VDF is the organized militia of VA. SO again, does
Scout have the right to own an M16A2 suitable for military use?
Also... I have read the US Code and I can see NO EXCEPTION for militiamen in
organized state defense forces.
You have a cite?
Randy Sweeney
RAY wrote in message <39394C2E...@interaccess.com>...
>> > If you enroll in a State Defense Force that requires
>> >you to use your private guns in the Defense Force, then
>> >your right to have such a gun would be covered by these
>> >exemptions.
>>
>> So... Scout is free to purchase a new M16A2?
>> You have a cite from the US Code for this?
>
>RR: Despite Scout's protestations to the
>contrary, the Virginia Defense Force does not
>permit training with guns, neither private nor
>public guns:
> STANDARD NUMBER 4:
> "The VaDF is not an armed force - weapons are not
> carried or used for either training or active duty."
>
>RR: I've given you this citation before Sweeney. You
>must have a rotten memory.
You've forgotten the rest of it... except when authorized by the governor
RAY
> RAY wrote in message <39394C2E...@interaccess.com>...
>
> >> > If you enroll in a State Defense Force that requires
> >> >you to use your private guns in the Defense Force, then
> >> >your right to have such a gun would be covered by these
> >> >exemptions.
> >>
> >> So... Scout is free to purchase a new M16A2?
> >> You have a cite from the US Code for this?
> >
> >RR: Despite Scout's protestations to the
> >contrary, the Virginia Defense Force does not
> >permit training with guns, neither private nor
> >public guns:
> > STANDARD NUMBER 4:
> > "The VaDF is not an armed force - weapons are not
> > carried or used for either training or active duty."
> >
> >RR: I've given you this citation before Sweeney. You
> >must have a rotten memory.
>
> You forgotten the rest of it... except when authorized by the governor
> ...who is their commander and has the power to say they have to train
> without pants if he wants.
> But he also has the power to tell them to report with weapons.
>
> By VA Law, (44-1), the VDF is the organized militia of VA. SO again, does
> Scout have the right to own an M16A2 suitable for military use?
RR: The day the governor authorizes personal M16's for
the VaDF is the day Scout can buy himself a shiny new
M16A2. This should be obvious. What the hell are you
smoking these days, Sweeney?
don
>
> in article 8h9g71$n01$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net, James F. Mayer at
> jf...@mindspring.com wrote on 6/2/00 5:32 PM:
>
> > Lee Harrison <lee...@amaonline.com> writes: > in article
> > 8h5jc7$lds$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net, James F. Mayer at
> >> jf...@mindspring.com wrote on 6/1/00 6:02 AM:
> >>
> >>> They also said that;
> >>>
> >>> UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
> >>>
> >>> ... 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."
> >>
> >> Glad you read a few words of my sigfile, Weenieboy. Here's more:
> >
> > Take your name-calling and shove it where the sun doesn't shine !!!!
>
>
> And you must stop denying your wiener heritage, son.
>
>
> "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this
> time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a
> well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees
> the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within
> judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military
> equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette
> v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158.
>
> "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."
>
> The Lone Weasel
Yah know Lee, many of us do not feel sanctioned or supported by the 2nd.
The basic right to life, so clear and innate for many of us, is
justification enough to be armed. We'll deal with our local statutes
concerning same and let you rant on about the 2nd. It still says what it
says and your interpretation has been refuted so many times the
characters laid end to end would stretch to the moon and back, along
with all the bogus opinions of left-liberal and dim witted conservative
judges. But you go on with your little mad charade and enjoy yourself.
How's the petition going? d
--
"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
Scout
"RAY" <Ki...@interaccess.com> wrote in message
news:39393524...@interaccess.com...
> RR: We should note that the Supreme Court anticipated this
> debate over whether the NG was the militia in another way.
> It said that even if the NG were to no longer be considered
> a Constitutional militia, that States still have another remedy
> by establishing constitutional militias of their own:
<Snip>
So Ray, are you changing your claims, and admitting that I can own arms no
matter what federal law may say on the subject?
After all as a member of a state organized/funded militia, certainly I have
the right to keep arms?
Scout
> Randy Sweeney wrote:
>
> > RAY wrote in message <39393524...@interaccess.com>...
> >
> > >RR: Thus, even setting the NG aside, States
> > >still have the option of setting up an old-style
> > >well-regulated militia in the framework
> > >established by the Founding Fathers. If you
> > >gunners want to really enjoy the guarantee
> > >of the 2nd Amendment, I suggest you have the
> > >NRA lobby for States to establish Defense
> > >Forces that allow you to use your personal
> > >guns in them.
> >
> > But Ray...
> >
> > The Federal weapons bans prohibit citizens from owning military style
> > weapons as would be useful to such a militia.
> > Are you now opposing this infringement that you have previously
supported?
>
> RR: None of the weapons bans apply to divisions
> of the States.
> you to use your private guns in the Defense Force, then
> your right to have such a gun would be covered by these
> exemptions.
Ray's idea of a right......anything not mandatory is prohibited.
Excuse me, but can you provide ANY cite for your claims that the arm has to
be required and IN USE prior to being able to keep it?
Scout
> Randy Sweeney wrote:
>
> > RAY wrote in message <39394C2E...@interaccess.com>...
> >
> > >> > If you enroll in a State Defense Force that requires
> > >> >you to use your private guns in the Defense Force, then
> > >> >your right to have such a gun would be covered by these
> > >> >exemptions.
> > >>
> > >> You have a cite from the US Code for this?
> > >
> > >RR: Despite Scout's protestations to the
> > >contrary, the Virginia Defense Force does not
> > >permit training with guns, neither private nor
> > >public guns:
> > > STANDARD NUMBER 4:
> > > "The VaDF is not an armed force - weapons are not
> > > carried or used for either training or active duty."
> > >
> > >RR: I've given you this citation before Sweeney. You
> > >must have a rotten memory.
> >
> > You forgotten the rest of it... except when authorized by the governor
> > ...who is their commander and has the power to say they have to train
> > without pants if he wants.
> > But he also has the power to tell them to report with weapons.
> >
> > By VA Law, (44-1), the VDF is the organized militia of VA. SO again,
does
> > Scout have the right to own an M16A2 suitable for military use?
>
> RR: The day the governor authorizes personal M16's for
> the VaDF is the day Scout can buy himself a shiny new
> M16A2. This should be obvious. What the hell are you
> smoking these days, Sweeney?
Ah, Ray, the governor can't prohibit our ownership of those. ref VA State
Constitution.
Further, I like your idea of a right, something that must be "authorized".
Further where exactly is your source that my arms must be "authorized" prior
to having 2nd Amendment protects.
Finally,. let's consider the implications of what Ray is claiming. According
to Ray, I have no right to own or train with (on my own time) such arms
until authorized by the Governor, which will likely be in a time of
EMERGENCY, then and only then, am I to try to buy something in limited
supply (how many gun stores even stock them) learn how to use it, then
report for duty with it, all in time to react to a critical emergency?
Does this make ANY sense?
I thought the idea of protecting arms, was so that we would have such armed
and ready people that could react in a timely manner to emergencies. So tell
me Ray, how much notice does the governor get prior to a major emergency?
Last thought, I note that Ray defines FEDERAL infringements of rights,
because the state has not MANDATED their exercise. Excuse me, but while the
state may or may not be able to mandate I exercise my rights, or not. I fail
to see what the state does or does not do, has ANY bearing upon actions
taken by the federal government. Can Ray show us the exemptions that would
be required in the federal gun control acts?
Scout
> Randy Sweeney wrote:
>
> > RAY wrote in message <39393D4D...@interaccess.com>...
> > >Randy Sweeney wrote:
> > >
> > >> RAY wrote in message <39393524...@interaccess.com>...
> > >>
> > >> >RR: Thus, even setting the NG aside, States
> > >> >still have the option of setting up an old-style
> > >> >well-regulated militia in the framework
> > >> >established by the Founding Fathers. If you
> > >> >gunners want to really enjoy the guarantee
> > >> >of the 2nd Amendment, I suggest you have the
> > >> >NRA lobby for States to establish Defense
> > >> >Forces that allow you to use your personal
> > >> >guns in them.
> > >>
> > >> But Ray...
> > >>
> > >> The Federal weapons bans prohibit citizens from owning military style
> > >> weapons as would be useful to such a militia.
> > >> Are you now opposing this infringement that you have previously
> > supported?
> > >
> > >RR: None of the weapons bans apply to divisions
> > >of the States.
> > >you to use your private guns in the Defense Force, then
> > >your right to have such a gun would be covered by these
> > >exemptions.
> >
> > So... Scout is free to purchase a new M16A2?
> > You have a cite from the US Code for this?
>
> RR: Despite Scout's protestations to the
> contrary, the Virginia Defense Force does not
> permit training with guns, neither private nor
> public guns:
> STANDARD NUMBER 4:
> "The VaDF is not an armed force - weapons are not
> carried or used for either training or active duty."
>
> RR: I've given you this citation before Sweeney. You
> must have a rotten memory.
unless authorized by the governor. You missed that little portion, and I
fail to see how temporary restrictions on my use during active duty, at all
impact my right to KEEP such arms.
Further can you please cite the source for this claim that such arms use is
required prior to 2nd Amendment protections.
IOW what hole are you digging this claim out of?
RAY
> "RAY" <Ki...@interaccess.com> wrote in message
> news:39396A91...@interaccess.com...
> > Randy Sweeney wrote:
> >
> > > RAY wrote in message <39394C2E...@interaccess.com>...
> > >
> > > >> > If you enroll in a State Defense Force that requires
> > > >> >you to use your private guns in the Defense Force, then
> > > >> >your right to have such a gun would be covered by these
> > > >> >exemptions.
> > > >>
> > > >> So... Scout is free to purchase a new M16A2?
> > > >> You have a cite from the US Code for this?
> > > >
> > > >RR: Despite Scout's protestations to the
> > > >contrary, the Virginia Defense Force does not
> > > >permit training with guns, neither private nor
> > > >public guns:
> > > > STANDARD NUMBER 4:
> > > > "The VaDF is not an armed force - weapons are not
> > > > carried or used for either training or active duty."
> > > >
> > > >RR: I've given you this citation before Sweeney. You
> > > >must have a rotten memory.
> > >
> > > You forgotten the rest of it... except when authorized by the governor
> > > ...who is their commander and has the power to say they have to train
> > > without pants if he wants.
> > > But he also has the power to tell them to report with weapons.
> > >
> > > By VA Law, (44-1), the VDF is the organized militia of VA. SO again,
> does
> > > Scout have the right to own an M16A2 suitable for military use?
> >
> > RR: The day the governor authorizes personal M16's for
> > the VaDF is the day Scout can buy himself a shiny new
> > M16A2. This should be obvious. What the hell are you
> > smoking these days, Sweeney?
>
> Ah, Ray, the governor can't prohibit our ownership of those. ref VA State
> Constitution.
>
> Further, I like your idea of a right, something that must be "authorized".
>
> Further where exactly is your source that my arms must be "authorized" prior
> to having 2nd Amendment protects.
>
> Finally,. let's consider the implications of what Ray is claiming. According
> to Ray, I have no right to own or train with (on my own time) such arms
> until authorized by the Governor, which will likely be in a time of
> EMERGENCY, then and only then, am I to try to buy something in limited
> supply (how many gun stores even stock them) learn how to use it, then
> report for duty with it, all in time to react to a critical emergency?
>
> Does this make ANY sense?
RR: Yes.
> I thought the idea of protecting arms, was so that we would have such armed
> and ready people that could react in a timely manner to emergencies. So tell
> me Ray, how much notice does the governor get prior to a major emergency?
RR: Your VaDF is a 'government' militia, Scout. That means
your government calls the shots (so to speak), not you.
Your government will tell you when to get a gun, what gun
to get, and how to use it.
Get over your Minuteman fantasy. It never existed
anyway. Even Minutemen followed their patriot
government's orders.
Randy Sweeney
facts and not lies. Eventually they get caught... then they go back to the
lie and pretend they never said any of it.
Lee manages to flip back and forth every day now... perhaps Ray will as
well.
All I can figure is that none of these people have any integrity. Even if
they start off just ignorant and ideological, they soon become liars and
trolls.
Dale Franks
making, I am at a loss to understand yours.
"Lee Harrison" <lee...@amaonline.com> wrote in message
news:B55C7FBB.250D%lee...@amaonline.com...
> in article FkDZ4.269442$8k3.2...@news1.rdc1.sdca.home.com, Dale Franks
at
> da...@dalefranks.com wrote on 6/1/00 6:36 PM:
>
> > Perhaps your contradiction of my statement might have more force if you
> > referred to a constitutional writing that referred to the phrase in
> > question, rather than referring to Art 1, Sec 8.
>
> A Supreme Court opinion on the Second Amendment is the most authoritative
> writing about the Constitution besides the Constitution itself.
>
> _______________
>
> UNITED STATES 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.'
> U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, 8. 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.
>
> [...]
>
> "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."
>
>
>
Dale Franks
weapons. That is NOT a settled point in Constitutional law. The Bill of
Rights uses the term "the people" to refer to individual rights in the other
amendments. Since that is so, why does the same term have a different
meaning in the Second Amendment?
There is little historical support either in the ratification debates, or in
writings contemporary with ratification, that indicate the right to keep and
bear arms was anything other than an individual right, just as there is
little or no evidence contradicting the fact that the Framers assumed that
the citizenry would be armed.
That seems to me to be an important point. If it is an individual right,
then why should it be constrained in any way that is different from those
that are organic to the Fourth of Fifth or First Amendments? The only
relevant Second Amendment case--i.e. the only case decided after the Court
incorporated the bill of rights to the states through the Fourteenth
amendment--is Miller v. US. Miller is, at best, ambiguous in its guidance
here, because Justice McReynold's opinion seems to indicate that the court
at the time (1939) would have looked far more kindly on Miller's case had he
been able to argue that a sawed-off shotgun had some defensible military
use. (Which, by the way, it does.)
But, on the other hand, if it is not an individual right, but rather a
collective right that is only associated with membership in a state militia,
then the Court seems to be saying that all a state must do is declare that
the whole body of the citizenry belongs to a "militia", thus escaping almost
ANY Federal restrictions on firearms ownership.
But here, we are faced with a quandary: The incorporationist doctrine
applies the Bill of Rights to the States as well as the Federal government.
So, if the Federal Government is prohibited from infringing on the right to
bear arms, why then are the state governments not similarly enjoined through
incorporation?
You may be quite sure of your position on the Second Amendment, but since
essentially no modern Supreme Court guidance on the issue exists, one
wonders what the actual outcome of a Second Amendment case that tests this
issue would be.
Since the Supreme Court does not seem keen to grant certiorari for these
cases, the answer may be a long time coming.
"RAY" <Ki...@interaccess.com> wrote in message
news:39393524...@interaccess.com...
> RR: We should note that the Supreme Court anticipated this
> debate over whether the NG was the militia in another way.
> It said that even if the NG were to no longer be considered
> a Constitutional militia, that States still have another remedy
> by establishing constitutional militias of their own:
>
> "Moreover, Congress has provided by statute that
> in addition to its National Guard, a State may provide and
> maintain at its own expense a defense force that is
> exempt from being drafted into the Armed Forces.
> As long as that providision remains in effect, there
> is no basis for an argument that the federal
> statutory scheme deprives Minnesota of any
> constitutional entitlement to a separate militia of
> its own."
>
> RR: Thus, even setting the NG aside, States
> still have the option of setting up an old-style
> well-regulated militia in the framework
> established by the Founding Fathers. If you
> gunners want to really enjoy the guarantee
> of the 2nd Amendment, I suggest you have the
> NRA lobby for States to establish Defense
> Forces that allow you to use your personal
> guns in them.
>
Dale Franks
of US v. Miller that says about the militia:
These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically
capable of acting in concert for the common defense.
That's a pretty expansive definition of militia. Not a lot of restrictions
there.
"Lee Harrison" <lee...@amaonline.com> wrote in message
news:B55CB0C8.273D%lee...@amaonline.com...
> in article 8UDZ4.2979$HD6....@iad-read.news.verio.net, Scout at
> sc...@monumental.com wrote on 6/1/00 1:08 PM:
>
> > Several points, which I know Lee will ignore, but others might find
> > interesting.
> >
> > 1) No where is Congress given to be the EXCLUSIVE source of uniform
military
> > order.
>
> Yes, Congress is given the power to organize and discipline the militia;
the
> states are empowered to appoint officers and train the troops.
>
> Maybe you've heard of a little number called Title 32 of the U.S. Code.
>
> > I note that Lee has admitted that I am a member of a well regulated
> > militia despite no involvement from Congress
>
> I admit you whine about it all the time, but I have no way of verifying
your
> claims, and in fact I posted the section of Virginia Code that explained
> why, if you really are in the VA SDF, you may not play with guns.
>
> > 2) Congress was granted the power to provide those uniform military
> > standards, not to regulate the militia
>
> Better take a look at Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15-16, Snout. Your
> fantasies about what the Constitution says have taken wing again.
>
> > 3) Congress' exercise of that power is such that EVERYONE is well
regulated
> > since they meet all the requirements of the standards established
>
> Wrong.
>
> > 4) I also not that Congress is prohibited from disarming the militia,
which
> > also means that Constitutionally they are REQUIRED to provide uniform
> > military order to ANYONE that wants it.
>
> Wrong.
>
> > Since otherwise they would be
> > disarming the militia by failing to provide for the militia as required
of
> > them by the Constitution.
>
> Wrong.
>
> > 5) The right of those in a well regulated militia HAS been infringed by
> > federal law, rules and regulations
>
> Can you describe the infringement?
>
> > 6) The right in the 2nd is recognized to belong to the people, not just
the
> > well regulated militia, so the whole argument over the context of the
> > militia is irrelevant to the primary issue of the Constitutionality of
gun
> > control
>
> Unfortunately, Snout, you haven't reconciled your fictional interpretation
> of the Constitution with the Supreme Court.
>
> No prize for you!
Fred Galvin
> Your point of view seems to be that only members of a militia may
> own weapons. That is NOT a settled point in Constitutional law.
> The Bill of Rights uses the term "the people" to refer to
> individual rights in the other amendments. Since that is so, why
> does the same term have a different meaning in the Second
> Amendment?
>
> There is little historical support either in the ratification
> debates, or in writings contemporary with ratification, that
> indicate the right to keep and bear arms was anything other than
> an individual right, just as there is little or no evidence
> contradicting the fact that the Framers assumed that the citizenry
> would be armed.
Maybe one of you constitutional scholars can explain something I've
been wondering about. Forget about the Second Amendment. Let's assume
for the sake of argument that the Second Amendment is not about
individual rights. So what? Where does the Constitution give the
Federal Government the power to restrict gun ownership? And what about
the Ninth and Tenth Amendments? Has the idea of "enumerated powers"
gone out of style?
Randy Sweeney
RAY wrote in message <3939E0BF...@interaccess.com>...
>RR: Your VaDF is a 'government' militia, Scout. That means
>your government calls the shots (so to speak), not you.
>Your government will tell you when to get a gun, what gun
>to get, and how to use it.
> Get over your Minuteman fantasy. It never existed
>anyway. Even Minutemen followed their patriot
>government's orders.
So now we have it... the government is the militia! It may arm or disarm the
people at will.
Ray is back full circle.
Scout
I see so in Rayland the volunter fire deparment only buys fire equipement
AFTER a major fire breaks out?
You go buy a fire extingusiher for your kitchen AFTER you get a grease fire
the threatens to ingolf the structure unless immediately controlled.
Yep, in Rayland emergency response is measured in hours, days, weeks or even
months. So Ray, how many people will die while we wait to obtain the
necessary equipement to save their lives?
No, ray, it doesn't make sense, no sense at all. For in an emergency there
is no TIME for such delays, the need is critical and the response is needed
NOW, not 6 months from now, not 15 busniess days, not even 3 days, but NOW.
> > I thought the idea of protecting arms, was so that we would have such
armed
> > and ready people that could react in a timely manner to emergencies. So
tell
> > me Ray, how much notice does the governor get prior to a major
emergency?
>
> RR: Your VaDF is a 'government' militia, Scout. That means
> your government calls the shots (so to speak), not you.
Only within my active duty service. They can not prohibit my ownership of
arms, or my legal use of such arms when off duty. That I have such arms, and
can respond with such arms when called to do so is my duty. (ref US vs
Miller)
> Your government will tell you when to get a gun, what gun
> to get, and how to use it.
No, sorry, but I do not have to wait for such permission. ref Va State
Constitution.
They have no power to DENY this to me.
> Get over your Minuteman fantasy. It never existed
> anyway. Even Minutemen followed their patriot
> government's orders.
Translation: Average people with their own arms (often illegally owned)
followed the orders of those people they advanced over them.
Sounds like just about any other non-government affilated militia.
Does the Michigain militia have the right to keep and bear arms without
infringement?
Finally, once again I ask you for your source, that my arms must be
specifically authorized or mandated prior to my protection under the 2nd.
I asked you this last time, but you seem to have snipped it out. So let's
ask it again. After all you must have a source you pulled this from.
Scout
"Dale Franks" <da...@dalefranks.com> wrote in message
news:Fyo_4.276030$8k3.2...@news1.rdc1.sdca.home.com...
> Your point of view seems to be that only members of a militia may own
> weapons.
Point of clarification: Lee believes that only members of the federally
organized militia paid by the federal government and part of the US military
reserves may own weapons, and then only those weapons supplied by the US
government, and then only with authorized for use, and then only as long as
that use is authorized....
Just thought I should clear this up since Lee does NOT believe the 2nd
applies to members of a militia, even a well regulated one.
After all he denies my ownership despite being in what he admits is a well
regulated militia in my State Defense Force.
Lee Harrison
sc...@monumental.com wrote on 6/2/00 7:52 AM:
>> The militia was federalized, not drafted into the regular army. That's
>> still how they do it - the militia, which is the National Guard,
>
> Here Lee lies and denies the very language of 10USC311.
You're way off, Snout.
See U.S. Code, Title 32, Chapter 2.
> Further it should be noted that the National Guard is a reserve component of
> the US Army.
Yes, but it's not part of the Armed Forces, like the Army Reserves.
See 10 USC 101 or 32 USC 101.
_________________
IF MEMBERSHIP IN THE UNORGANIZED MILITIA PROVIDED A SECOND AMENDMENT RKBA
In 1997, there were 267,800,000 Americans according to the 1998 Statistical
Abstract.
65,613,000 were 16 years and under. 85,570,000 were 46 years and older.
That means most Americans - 151,183,000 - would not be eligible for
membership in the unorganized militia just because of age.
There were about 11,097,000 disabled and blind persons in America in
1997, not counting persons over 65 years old. So these people would also
not be eligible for membership in the unorganized militia, and would have no
right to keep and bear arms.
The total of Americans disqualified for militia membership for being too
young, too old, or disabled would be 162,280,000. Then there are the
exempted persons, and that varies slightly from state to state.
162,280,000 Americans would have no right to keep and bear arms, if
membership in the unorganized militia were protected by the Second
Amendment.
That would be about 61% of Americans who would have no RKBA.
But according to U.S. v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016 (8th Cir. 1992), there's no
Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for members of the unorganized
militia:
[begin excerpt]
Since the Miller decision, no federal court has found any individual's
possession of a military weapon to be "reasonably related to a well
regulated militia." "Technical" membership in a state militia (e.g.,
membership in an "unorganized" state militia) or membership in a
non-governmental military organization is not sufficient to satisfy the
"reasonable relationship" test. Oakes, 564 F.2d at 387. Membership in a
hypothetical or "sedentary" militia is likewise insufficient. See Warin,
530 F.2d 103.
[end excerpt]
Lee Harrison
wrote on 6/3/00 6:10 PM:
> Yah know Lee, many of us do not feel sanctioned or supported by the 2nd.
Your feelings have nothing to do with settled law on the Second Amendment.
Get used to it, Donaldo.
> The basic right to life,
Which is shared by around 100,000 victims of nonfatal firearm injuries every
year, and around 13,000 gun murder victims, and another 18,000 suicides.
You boys just don't have a Second Amendment right to play with guns.
Check your state constitutions and statutes for your actual gun rights.
[snip]
> How's the petition going? d
Glad you asked.
A Petition To Require A NICS Background Check On Private Gun Purchases
Presently, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) is
used only to check people buying guns from a Federal Firearms Licensee
(FFL). Private sales of firearms do not require a NICS check on the buyer.
Felons and other people who aren't supposed to have guns can exploit this
loophole in the law to buy guns with virtual impunity.
We, the undersigned, petition the Congress of the United States to require a
NICS background check on all gun purchases:
http://leeharrison.simplenet.com/weasel/nics.mv
Three New Reports On Guns In America
http://leeharrison.simplenet.com/weasel/guns.html
James Stutts
Lee Harrison wrote in message ...
<snip drivel>
>
>Check your state constitutions and statutes for your actual gun rights.
My state's constitution says that I have the right to bear arms in defense
of myself and the state.
What does yours say?
JCS
SnipeUNblu
The 2nd amendment begins with "A Well Regulated Militia, necessary for the
security of a free state, ...."
Note the words WELL REGULATED.
Yet the NRA opposes all regulation and laws applying to members and gun owners.
This is in direct violation of the 2nd amendment. It attacks President
Clinton, Vice President Gore and any others that dare to confront them. The
organization has become a haven for anti-government radicals, racists and other
disturbed individuals.
Our forefathers must have been concerned as to what groups became militias or
they would not have included the words "well regulated".
The NRA has become the true violator of the 2nd amendment and the real threat
to our free state's security.
>>
Sarah you are a stupid little liberal whore and you know your using lies.
Don't post in this news group anymore unless your willing to have a valid
E-mail address. You hide behind your computer because you are a coward.
Now read the facts below
(THE RIGHT TO ARMS AND ASSEMBLY)
Much slander has been leveled at the Second Amendment, but what did the
Founders have to say about the debate. If a time machine could deliver them to
our time would the debate last another day? Lets examine their thoughts.
The critics say, “the Second Amendment spoke of the right of states to
maintain a militia, not the individual's right to keep arms.” George Mason,
a Virginian said, “I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the
whole people, except for a few public officials.” The Founders made a
distinction between state or government militia and the people when they called
regular formations called upon for service “select militia,” and stressed the
importance of the people to keep arms should the need arise for them to be
called from the unorganized militia to the state's select militia.
While the Second Amendment does talk of the state's right to form militia
formations it also recognizes the individual right that make the militia system
possible for the security of a free state. “The National Guard is what the
Founders had in mind” gun prohibitionists whimper. The Guard's men are
prohibited by law from keeping those M-16’s at home, and all Guard weapons are
the property of the Federal Government. Further more all Guard units are
subject to Federalization and are no less the standing army feared by the
Founders, on loan to the states.
This revelation dismisses the argument that “well regulated” must mean a
militia controlled by a government agency. “Regulated” since the time of the
ratification of the Second Amendment, has changed meaning like many other words
have. Well regulated at that time simply meant well drilled or functiong.
("The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as
futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into
execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that
requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice
for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the
other classes of the citizens, to be
under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions,
as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would
entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real
grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would
form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount
which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far
short of the whole
expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which
would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent,
would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it
would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect
to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in
order to see that this be
not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in
the course of a year." Hamilton.) This folly of interpretation was warned
against by Thomas Jefferson when he said, “On every question of construction,
carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect
the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be
squeezed out of the text, or invented against it conform to the probable one in
which it was passed.”
The anti-gun lobby is found of reciting Supreme Court decisions when it suits
their fancy forgetting that the Supreme Court is a branch of the Federal
Government. Jefferson said, “It is a very dangerous doctrine to consider the
judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions,” he goes on to
mention that the Constitution erected no such single tribunal for
interpretation. He also noted that, “judges are as honest as other men, and not
more so.” Jefferson's observation can be applied to police as the only armed
segment of society as well.
President Clinton says, “You don't need an AK-47 to hunt deer, you don't need
an Uzi to shoot quail”! Confining the debate to these parameters, who would
argue this?
But is the Second Amendment about duck hunting?
Again Jefferson offers the most profound answer when commenting on the
aftermath of shay's rebellion when he said, "What country before ever existed a
century & a half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve its
liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that his people
preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set
them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives
lost in a century or two? The tree
of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of
patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure. I hold that a little
rebellion now and again is a good thing.......”
(-Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), letter to Col. William S. Smith,
from Paris, November 13, 1787)
The current debate is being waged with lies by the anti-gun lobby who want to
enact laws to regulate rights that are above regulation. Since no power to
regulate firearms ownership was granted to the Federal Government (see Tenth
Amendment) talk of gun prohibition should take a back seat to cleaning up
Federal usurpation. After all the usurpations of King George led to the direct
need of the colonial militia defense system against their own government, the
Crown.
mrkharf
> states to
> maintain a militia, not the individual's right to keep arms.â€
> George Mason,
> a Virginian said, “I ask you sir, who are the militia? They
> consist now of the
> whole people, except for a few public officials.†The Founders
> made a
> distinction between state or government militia and the people
> when they called
> stressed the
> importance of the people to keep arms should the need arise for
> them to be
> called from the unorganized militia to the state's select militia.
> While the Second Amendment does talk of the state's right to
> form militia
> formations it also recognizes the individual right that make the
> militia system
> what the
> Founders had in mind†gun prohibitionists whimper. The Guard's men
> are
> prohibited by law from keeping those M-16’s at home, and all Guard
> weapons are
> the property of the Federal Government. Further more all Guard
> units are
> subject to Federalization and are no less the standing army feared
> by the
> Founders, on loan to the states.
> must mean a
> militia controlled by a government agency. “Regulated†since the
> construction,
> carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was
> adopted, recollect
> the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what
> meaning may be
> squeezed out of the text, or invented against it conform to the
> probable one in
> when it suits
> their fancy forgetting that the Supreme Court is a branch of the
> Federal
> consider the
> judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions,â€
> mention that the Constitution erected no such single tribunal for
> men, and not
> more so.†Jefferson's observation can be applied to police as the
> only armed
> segment of society as well.
> you don't need
> an Uzi to shoot quail†! Confining the debate to these parameters,
> who would
> argue this?
> But is the Second Amendment about duck hunting?
> Again Jefferson offers the most profound answer when commenting
> on the
> aftermath of shay's rebellion when he said, "What country before
> ever existed a
> century & a half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve
> its
> liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that
> his people
> preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy
> is to set
> them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify
> a few lives
> lost in a century or two? The tree
> of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of
> patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure. I hold that a
> little
> from Paris, November 13, 1787)
>
> The current debate is being waged with lies by the anti-gun
> lobby who want to
> enact laws to regulate rights that are above regulation. Since no
> power to
> regulate firearms ownership was granted to the Federal Government
> (see Tenth
> Amendment) talk of gun prohibition should take a back seat to
> cleaning up
> Federal usurpation. After all the usurpations of King George led
> to the direct
> need of the colonial militia defense system against their own
> government, the
> Crown.
>
> By Snipe...@aol.com
sarah should reply to her own posts.
I`ve addressed her several times and never
once got a reply! I think she`s unable to
debate any issue one on one.
I welcome a chance to debate sarah on a one
on one basis.
mrkharf
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
handg...@my-deja.com
Lee Harrison <lee...@amaonline.com> blather for the last time...
>
> I've known wienerguys - wienerguys are sworn enemies of mine - and
son,
> you're no Handjobber.
>
PLONK!
Go fuck yourself, harrypalms...you ain't worth my time anymore....
Fuck off and die,
Handgunner
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Lee Harrison
handg...@my-hands-sure-are-tired.com at handg...@my-deja.com wrote on
6/5/00 1:15 PM:
> In article <B55E9EBC.2E21%lee...@amaonline.com>,
> Lee Harrison <lee...@amaonline.com> blather for the last time...
>> I've known wienerguys - wienerguys are sworn enemies of mine - and son,
>> you're no Handjobber.
> PLONK!
Handjobber can launch personal attacks - and nothing else - but he can't
handle personal attacks returned to him.
The prototypical ignorant gunfucker.
> Go fuck yourself, harrypalms...you ain't worth my time anymore....
What time would that be, Handjobber? The time when you're not wankin' it?
> Fuck off and die,
No - YOU fuck off and live!
Life for a dumbass like you is worse than death...
POINT PROVEN!
> Handgunner
_________________
DEFINITION OF THE LONE WEASEL
[begin definition]
Lone Weasel: 1 a : a mythological or legendary figure often of divine
descent endowed with great strength or ability b : an illustrious warrior c
: a man admired for his achievements and noble qualities d : one that shows
great courage 2 a : the principal male character in a literary or dramatic
work b : the central figure in an event, period, or movement
[end definition]
Randy Sweeney
>
>See 10 USC 101 or 32 USC 101.
Lee...every guardman has to be an Army Reservist.
Every dollar for the guard comes from the US Army Reserve.
Perpich lost in court because the guard is part of the USAR.
Do you know what the AR in the following NG website is for?
David E. Young
constitutional era:
"well regulated militia" was constitutional language found in the state
bills of rights, the Articles of Confederation, and in Bill of Rights
provisions which were predecessors of the Second Amendment, as well as in
the Second Amendment. In every one of the predecessor amendments of the
Second Amendment it is accompanied by the description of who the militia
are ------ "the body of the people".
Here is the provision from the New York Ratification of the Constitution:
"That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated
militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the
proper, natural and safe defence of a free state."
[The Origin of the Second Amendment, p. 481]
If one thinks about this, it is obvious that language would not be included
in a Bill of Rights provision which allows the government to regulate the
right out of existence. The intent is clearly that the militia, the people,
will be capable of functioning as militia because they will be armed whether
the government likes it or not.
Read the original sources. You will never regret having done so, and you
will understand how our ancestors understood the terminology of the period.
--
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/
Sarah67882 wrote in message
<20000531182412...@ng-cg1.aol.com>...
Scout
> in article 5Ig_4.3292$HD6....@iad-read.news.verio.net, Scout at
> sc...@monumental.com wrote on 6/2/00 7:52 AM:
>
> >> The militia was federalized, not drafted into the regular army. That's
> >> still how they do it - the militia, which is the National Guard,
> >
> > Here Lee lies and denies the very language of 10USC311.
>
> You're way off, Snout.
>
> See U.S. Code, Title 32, Chapter 2.
Sorry Lee, but that defines something entirely different than is defined in
10USC311.
See what I mean about your problem to understand 10USC311.
> > Further it should be noted that the National Guard is a reserve
component of
> > the US Army.
>
> Yes, but it's not part of the Armed Forces, like the Army Reserves.
>
> See 10 USC 101 or 32 USC 101.
Sorry, but while technically this might be true, in actual practice it is
not, since every member of the National Guard is required to hold dual
enlistment in the Armed Froces, like in the Army Reserves. As such there is
no one in the National Guard that is not part of the Armed Forces Reserves
and subject to military orders because of the same.
Lee Harrison
sc...@monumental.com wrote on 6/7/00 7:45 PM:
>> Yes, but it's not part of the Armed Forces, like the Army Reserves.
>>
>> See 10 USC 101 or 32 USC 101.
>
> Sorry, but while technically this might be true, in actual practice it is
> not, since every member of the National Guard is required to hold dual
> enlistment in the Armed Froces, like in the Army Reserves.
No, not the Armed Forces. Just read the definitions.
_____________________
Colt Takes Another Hit
Newsweek, June 12, 2000
America's oldest and most troubled gunmaker is getting shelled again逆his
time by the U.S. military. Reeling from lawsuits and struggling to pay
suppliers, Colt learned last week that it had lost its critical role making
M-16 rifles for U.S. soldiers. Instead, the Belgian gun manufacturer FN
Herstal got the new contract, worth up to $50 million over five years. The
Army, which buys guns for all the services, wouldn't say why Colt lost out,
disclosing only that the gunmaker didn't offer the "best value." Colt will
continue to make the more compact M-4 carbine for some military units. But
they may be closer to folding under the weight of legal fees and shrinking
profits. Company officials didn't return calls.