posted on April 4, 2002 04:59:05 AM new
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=3271
How about some debate on this. I stop short of breaking laws, but would like to hear both sides of opinion on this. Warning - this article is a bit long.
posted on April 4, 2002 06:11:39 AM new
If the premises of the argument were true, citizens could own tanks, missles, anti tank guns, ICBM nukes, etc.. An absurd result and an absurd interpretation in the argument.
The Second Amendment, as all Amendments, must be interpreted in the context of the times. When written, it was to purposely forment and cause the people of the country to be armed and regulated under state militias. Everyone was suspect towards this "new" federal government, as well as the Federal government being weak and needing regional militiary forces to stem incursions by European powers. Some states actually required all able males to buy and possess a rifle and be a member of the state militia. The government simply couldn't afford to supply and maintain a professional and full time military to protect from marauders, pirates, Indians, and foreign powers. The citizen soldier was the solution of necessity by the fledgling country, and wrongly construed by many as an individual right. A regulated militia does not confer an unbounded individual right to bear arms. It means that an individual will bear arms at the discretion and direction of the state government. The main contention, which is clear in the Constitution, is that the states are the regulators of its citizen's arms, not the federal government. The right to keep and bear arms is an injunction against the Ferderal government, not the states.
posted on April 4, 2002 06:31:23 AM new
Since it is a STATE regulated issue it is interesting to exaimine what the State of Michigan does.
The State Constitution of Michigan has a statement in it that the citizen has a right to keep weapons for three things - Self protection - protection of your property and for the protection of the State.
So the militia function is acknowledged but the other rights are granted also.
It has been the source of some action recently that the gun boards that only granted permits to politicians - rich people and ex-police were overturned and Michigan became a will-issue state. The thing that started that was that the prosecutor in Macolm county refused to continue denying permits because he had sworn to uphold the State Constitution, and it IS very clear.
After Macolm county started issuing thousand s of carry permits the crime levels went down. The people opposed to issuing permits were reduced to saying that crime would have gone down MORE without the permits.
Do I carry? Do I have a permit? No. But I do appreciate officials that don't talk out both sides of their mouth at once. They needed to either issue permits or change the Constitution. The fact they ignored their sworn duty for years shows that you can't count on a right backed by a toothless piece of paper if your polititions decide they will just ignore it and do what they please.
posted on April 4, 2002 06:38:01 AM new
Your pretty far off track, Reamond. The second amendment confers no regulatory powers to any state regarding type or characteristic of arms, it allows only that the maintenance of a militia is necessary AND SO the right of individuals to possess arms shall not be infringed.
Since a militia, by nature, is a force of individuals called upon to serve by a state with arms SUPPLIED BY THEMSELVES for the same persistant reason that you stated, rtto infringe the individual right to keep arms also infringes the ability of the state to reliably form a militia.
To your assertion that the scope of weaponry which an individual may keep should not be ridiculous by YOUR definition, nearly the only case heard and ruled by the U.S. Supreme court the court commented almost in direct oposition to your stance when they said "[w]ith 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 with that end in view.''5 The significance of the militia, the Court continued, was that it was composed of ''civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.'' It was upon this force that the States could rely for defense and securing of the laws, on a force that ''comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,'' who,''when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."
Weapons of the kind in common usage at the time of the writing of the constitution was musketry and sundry cannon but today, in this time, rather a larger field of weaponry is in common usage. That being the case, in order that any modern day militia might respond to the call to arms with a hope of a successful venture, those civilian respondents had better appear bearing tanks, machine guns, and sundry rocketry, perhaps a helicopter gunship for those who can fly.
(rubber tired tanks may be substituted to preserve the state roadways)
posted on April 4, 2002 06:51:11 AM new
This is really good feedback. I would like to hear more. For example, other unique state laws or rulings, court cases. Any helpful links. Again, I am interested in all views.
A humorous side note: I bought a shot gun for my husband years ago, along with shells as a gift for hunting. Of course he had to write down what kind of gun, etc. As a result, the gun is in my name. LOL.
There was an article several years ago in the Plain Dealer about a (hope I remember this right) guy in a wheel chair who owned a business. His garage kept getting broken into. Made numerous reports to police. Finally, he set up a booby trap. I know the intruder was injured, but don't remember if he died. The business owner was found guilty of a crime. Why can't you defend your property if they come into your house? Or maybe you can? Would I have to prove I couldn't get away from the intruder?
posted on April 4, 2002 09:57:50 AM new Gun Ownership Mandatory In Kennesaw,Georgia
Crime Rate Plummets
by Chuck Baldwin
---------------------------------------------
The New American magazine reminds us that March 25th marked the 16th anniversary of Kennesaw, Georgia's ordinance requiring heads of households (with certain exceptions) to keep at least one firearm in their homes.
The city's population grew from around 5,000 in 1980 to 13,000 by 1996 (latest available estimate). Yet there have been only three murders: two with knives (1984 and 1987) and one with a firearm (1997). After the law went into effect in 1982, crime against persons plummeted 74 percent compared to 1981, and fell another 45 percent in 1983 compared to 1982.
And it has stayed impressively low. In addition to nearly non-existent homicide (murders have averaged a mere 0.19 per year), the annual number of armed robberies, residential burglaries, commercial burglaries, and rapes have averaged, respectively, 1.69, 31.63, 19.75, and 2.00 through 1998.
With all the attention that has been heaped upon the lawful possession of firearms lately, you would think that a city that requires gun ownership would be the center of a media feeding frenzy. It isn't. The fact is I can't remember a major media outlet even mentioning Kennesaw. Can you?
The reason is obvious. Kennesaw proves that the presence of firearms actually improves safety and security. This is not the message that the media want us to hear. They want us to believe that guns are evil and are the cause of violence.
The facts tell a different story. What is even more interesting about Kennesaw is that the city's crime rate decreased with the simple knowledge that the entire community was armed. The bad guys didn't force the residents to prove it. Just knowing that residents were armed prompted them to move on to easier targets. Most criminals don't have a death wish.
There have been two occasions in my own family when the presence of a handgun averted potential disaster. In both instances the gun was never aimed at a person and no shot was fired.
posted on April 4, 2002 10:11:22 AM new
With a booby trap the immediate threat to bodily harm or death to the resident is not present.
Generally, a person can't use deadly force for a property crime. Breaking into an unoccupied dwelling usually falls within a property crime, as opposed to say an armed robbery of a person.
It would be reasonable to presume that someone breaking into your dwelling while you're there that there is a real and immediate threat of bodily harm or death.
krs- The Second Amendment only applies to the relationship between citizens of the states and the Federal government, not the relationship between the citizens and their state.
None of the Bill of Rights ever applied to the relationship between citizens and their state government until the 14th Amendment in 1868, and the 14th has yet to apply all of the Bill or Rights to the states, the Second Amendment was never applied to the states' right to regulate arms. Therefore the Second Amendment could only be applicable as between the Federal government and the citizens of the several states. To imply otherwise would require the re-writing of Constitutional history. There could not be a cornucopia of gun regulations in the states if your opinion had any validity, all gun regulations would be Federal, which they are not and never were.
The Second Amendment was used to assure the states that the Federal govt could not become a tryanny through force of arms and also provide protections in regions where a Federal militia could not arrive in time.
The original Articles of Confederation had just the opposite rule. The "US govt" had total control of arms and armies.
"No vessels of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State, except
such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the United States in
Congress assembled, for the defense of such State, or its trade; nor shall any
body of forces be kept up by any State, in time of peace, except such number
only, as in the judgment of the United States, in Congress assembled, shall
be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defense of such
State; but every State shall always keep up a well regulated and disciplined
militia, sufficiently armed and accoutred, and shall provide and constantly
have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents,
and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage."
The Second Amendment was the opposite of the Federal regulation of arms and armies of the states and citizens in the Articles of Confederation.
The Second Amendment is a prohibition to the Federal govt dis-arming the citizens of the several states.
So how does the Federal govt apply Federal firearms laws across the boards to all citizens? That is the million dollar question. That is the "crack" in the Second Amendment.
However, the states have very broad powers to regulate firearms, which would include an outright ban, unless the Supreme Court can somehow step in, or the Congress uses coersive powers to force the states to change.
Second Amendment jurisprudence is all over the map. Some states want Federal intervention, some states don't, but the reasons and directions are varied too. Some states don't want the Feds involved because the states want either more or less regulations. If the Supreme Court were to rule that regulation is entirely within the realm of the states because the 2nd Amend only applies to the relationship between citizens and the Federal govt, some states will complain that guns are being brought into their state from states with more liberal laws.
The 2nd Amend is not unlike slavery issues. Should I be allowed to bring my assault rifle into California if I'm from another state ? Can I buy my assualt rifle in another state and bring it back home to California ? Can I move my legal gun collection when I move to California or New York ? Gun regulation, just like slavery, carries over into other states, which usually means that a Federal resolution is in the making.
I think the Second Amendment is clear, the Federal govt lacks the Constitutional authority to dis-arm citizens, but it is equally clear the states are quite free to dis-arm their citizens.
posted on April 4, 2002 11:12:25 AM new
I think that REAMOND makes very salient points using the historical perspective and it probably is used in many legal arguments in court cases. After all, it IS the State that you live in that regulates weapon usage, not the Federal government.
At least, that's from the perspective of Original intent.
However, because of the purposely vague wording in the Constitution, this has given rise to other arguments. For instance, no Tyranny has ever been allowed to exist for long with an armed citizenry! With the citizens armed and willing to use force to throw down tyrants (like Bush & Co), our government, until recently, has remained a successful democracy of sorts. No other single factor has played such an important part in keeping our form of government, except the people's Vote.
Our Founding Fathers were leery of all-powerful governments. They were well aware that the aristocracy entrenched in Europe for over a thousand years, that caused so much killing, poverty, and complete misery, was largely due to bans upon citizens from arming themselves. The ancient Roman Empire, in fact, only became a complete tyranny once citizens were no longer compelled to own and be trained with weapons.
This lesson was well known to our Founding Fathers. I find that it is likely that the wording is intentionally vague in order to allow Americans to grasp hold of these lessons on Freedom.
So, whatever the historical or legal interpretation of the Constitution is, it is imperative that we be allowed to purchase and to keep arms. Not to repel foreign invaders, but Tyrants from our own (usually) elected government.
posted on April 4, 2002 11:27:27 AM new
Here is one of the first cracks that applies federal law to citizens right to bear arms.
U.S. Supreme Court
UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
307 U.S. 174
UNITED STATES
v.
MILLER et al.
No. 696.
Argued March 30, 1939.
Decided May 15, 1939.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Arkansas. [307 U.S. 174, 175] Mr. Gordon Dean, of Washington, D.C., for the United States.
No appearance for appellees.
Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.
An indictment in the District Court Western District Arkansas, charged that Jack Miller and Frank Layton 'did unlawfully, knowingly, wilfully, and feloniously transport in interstate commerce from the town of Claremore in the State of Oklahoma to the town of Siloam Springs in the State of Arkansas a certain firearm, to-wit, a double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, bearing identification number 76230, said defendants, at the time of so transporting said firearm in interstate commerce as aforesaid, not having registered said firearm as required by Section 1132d of Title 26, United States Code, 26 U.S.C.A. 1132d (Act of June 26, 1934, c. 757, Sec. 5, 48 Stat. 1237), and not having in their possession a stamp-affixed written order for said firearm as provided by Section 1132c, Title 26, United States Code, 26 U.S.C.A. 1132c (June 26, 1934, c. 757, Sec. 4, 48 Stat. 1237) and the regulations issued under authority of the said Act of Congress known as the 'National Firearms Act' approved June 26, 1934, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the United States.' 1 [307 U.S. 174, 176] A duly interposed demurrer alleged: The National Firearms Act is not a revenue measure but an attempt to usurp police power reserved to the States, and is therefore unconstitutional. Also, it offends the inhibition of the Second Amendment to the Constitution, U.S.C.A.-'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' [307 U.S. 174, 177] The District Court held that section 11 of the Act violates the Second Amendment. It accordingly sustained the demurrer and quashed the indictment.
The cause is here by direct appeal.
Considering Sonzinsky v. United States, 1937, 300 U.S. 506, 513 , 57 S. Ct. 554, and what was ruled in sundry causes aris- [307 U.S. 174, 178] ing under the Harrison Narcotic Act2-United States v. Jin Fuey Moy, 1916, 241 U.S. 394 , 36 S.Ct. 658, Ann.Cas.1917D, 854; United States v. Doremus, 1919, 249 U.S. 86, 94 , 39 S.Ct. 214; Linder v. United States, 1925, 268 U.S. 5 , 45 S.Ct. 446, 39 A.L.R. 229; Alston v. United States, 1927, 274 U.S. 289 , 47 S.Ct. 634; Nigro v. United States, 1928, 276 U.S. 332 , 48 S.Ct. 388-the objection that the Act usurps police power reserved to the States is plainly untenable.
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 of Tennessee, 2 Humph., 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.' 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 Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they [307 U.S. 174, 179] were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.
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.
Blackstone's Commentaries, Vol. 2, Ch. 13, p. 409 points out 'that king Alfred first settled a national militia in this kingdom' and traces the subsequent development and use of such forces.
Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, Book V. Ch. 1, contains an extended account of the Militia. It is there said: 'Men of republican principles have been jealous of a standing army as dangerous to liberty.' 'In a militia, the character of the labourer, artificer, or tradesman, predominates over that of the soldier: in a standing army, that of the soldier predominates over every other character; and in this distinction seems to consist the essential difference between those two different species of military force.'
'The American Colonies In The 17th Century', Osgood, Vol. 1, ch. XIII, affirms in reference to the early system of defense in New England-
'In all the colonies, as in England, the militia system was based on the principle of the assize of arms. This implied the general obligation of all adult male inhabitants to possess arms, and, with certain exceptions, to [307 U.S. 174, 180] cooperate in the work of defence.' 'The possession of arms also implied the possession of ammunition, and the authorities paid quite as much attention to the latter as to the former.' 'A year later (1632) it was ordered that any single man who had not furnished himself with arms might be put out to service, and this became a permanent part of the legislation of the colony (Massachusetts).'
Also 'Clauses intended to insure the possession of arms and ammunition by all who were subject to military service appear in all the important enactments concerning military affairs. Fines were the penalty for delinquency, whether of towns or individuals. According to the usage of the times, the infantry of Massachusetts consisted of pikemen and musketeers. The law, as enacted in 1649 and thereafter, provided that each of the former should be armed with a pike, corselet, head-piece, sword, and knapsack. The musketeer should carry a 'good fixed musket,' not under bastard musket bore, not less than three feet, nine inches, nor more than four feet three inches in length, a priming wire, scourer, and mould, a sword, rest, bandoleers, one pound of powder, twenty bullets, and two fathoms of match. The law also required that two-thirds of each company should be musketeers.'
The General Court of Massachusetts, January Session 1784 (Laws and Resolves 1784, c. 55, pp. 140, 142), provided for the organization and government of the Militia. It directed that the Train Band should 'contain all able bodied men, from sixteen to forty years of age, and the Alarm List, all other men under sixty years of age, ....' Also, 'That every non-commissioned officer and private soldier of the said militia not under the controul of parents, masters or guardians, and being of sufficient ability therefor in the judgment of the Selectmen of the town in which he shall dwell, shall equip himself, and be constantly provided with a good fire arm, &c.'
By an Act passed April 4, 1786 (Laws 1786, c. 25), the New York Legislature directed: 'That every able-bodied Male Person, be- [307 U.S. 174, 181] ing a Citizen of this State, or of any of the United States, and residing in this State, (except such Persons as are herein after excepted) and who are of the Age of Sixteen, and under the Age of Forty-five Years, shall, by the Captain or commanding Officer of the Beat in which such Citizens shall reside, within four Months after the passing of this Act, be enrolled in the Company of such Beat. ... That every Citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within three Months thereafter, provide himself, at his own Expense, with a good Musket or Firelock, a sufficient Bayonet and Belt, a Pouch with a Box therein to contain not less than Twenty-four Cartridges suited to the Bore of his Musket or Firelock, each Cartridge containing a proper Quantity of Powder and Ball, two spare Flints, a Blanket and Knapsack; ....'
The General Assembly of Virginia, October, 1785 (12 Hening's Statutes c. 1, p. 9 et seq.), declared: 'The defense and safety of the commonwealth depend upon having its citizens properly armed and taught the knowledge of military duty.'
It further provided for organization and control of the Militia and directed that 'All free male persons between the ages of eighteen and fifty years,' with certain exceptions, 'shall be inrolled or formed into companies.' 'There shall be a private muster of every company once in two months.'
Also that 'Every officer and soldier shall appear at his respective muster-field on the day appointed, by eleven o'clock in the forenoon, armed, equipped, and accoutred, as follows: ... every non-commissioned officer and private with a good, clean musket carrying an ounce ball, and three feet eight inches long in the barrel, with a good bayonet and iron ramrod well fitted thereto, a cartridge box properly made, to contain and secure twenty cartridges fitted to his musket, a good knapsack and canteen, and moreover, each non-commissioned officer and private shall have at every muster one pound of good [307 U.S. 174, 182] powder, and four pounds of lead, including twenty blind cartridges; and each serjeant shall have a pair of moulds fit to cast balls for their respective companies, to be purchased by the commanding officer out of the monies arising on delinquencies. Provided, That the militia of the counties westward of the Blue Ridge, and the counties below adjoining thereto, shall not be obliged to be armed with muskets, but may have good rifles with proper accoutrements, in lieu thereof. And every of the said officers, non-commissioned officers, and privates, shall constantly keep the aforesaid arms, accoutrements, and ammunition, ready to be produced whenever called for by his commanding officer. If any private shall make it appear to the satisfaction of the court hereafter to be appointed for trying delinquencies under this act that he is so poor that he cannot purchase the arms herein required, such court shall cause them to be purchased out of the money arising from delinquents.'
Most if not all of the States have adopted provisions touching the right to keep and bear arms. Differences in the language employed in these have naturally led to somewhat variant conclusions concerning the scope of the right guaranteed. But none of them seem to afford any material support for the challenged ruling of the court below.
In the margin some of the more important opinions and comments by writers are cited. 3 [307 U.S. 174, 183] We are unable to accept the conclusion of the court below and the challenged judgment must be reversed. The cause will be remanded for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS took no part in the consideration or decision of this cause.
"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." This reasoning could very well mean that citizens should have tanks and missles.
[ edited by REAMOND on Apr 4, 2002 12:31 PM ]
posted on April 4, 2002 11:43:14 AM new
Here is an excerpt from a 19th century Supreme Court case that cites the conclusion that the 2nd Amendment applies only tothe Feds dis-arming the citizens. Do note that the case is dated 1886, After the 14th Amendment.
"We are next to inquire whether the fifth and sixth sections of article 11 of the Military Code are in violation of the other provisions of the constitution of the United States relied on by the plaintiff in error. The first of these is the second amendment, which declares: 'A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'
We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265] and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But a conclusive answer to the contention that this amendment prohibits the legislation in question lies in the fact that the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state. It was so held by this court in the case of U. S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 , 553, in which the chief justice, in delivering the judgment of the court, said that the right of the people to keep and bear arms 'is not a right granted by the constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes to what is called in City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. [116 U.S. 252, 102] 139, the 'powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was perhaps more properly called internal police,' 'not surrendered or restrained' by the constitution of the United States.' See, also, Barron v. Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243; Fox v. State, 5 How. 410; Twitchell v. Com., 7 Wall. 321, 327; Jackson v. Wood, 2 Cow. 819;Com. v. Purchase, 2 Pick. 521; U. S. v. Cruikshank, 1 Woods, 308; North Carolina v. Newsom, 5 Ired. 250; Andrews v. State, 3 Heisk. 165; Fife v. State, 31 Ark. 455. "
But interesting enough the same court went on to say refering to an article in the Constitution for the Feds to muster citizens for a National Militia as well as the states the courts adds
"It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government. But, as already stated, we think [116 U.S. 252, 266] it clear that the sections under consideration do not have this effect."
On the surface, it appears that the Court is saying that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states, BUT, should the states try to dis-arm the citizens, the Federal govt has an interest in the citizens being armed- I think refering again to Article 1 sec 8 ??
What the court attempts to do is play both sides of the street- the Second Amendment doesn't apply to state law, BUT we may need a national armed militia, so the states can't wholesale dis-arm the people. This is the exact opposite of why the Second Amendment was put in the Bill of Rights- i.e., the states wanted an armed populace unfettered by federal law, but now the Supreme Court is saying that it wants a national armed militia unfettered by state law, but apparently not under color of the Second Amendment, but under Congress through Art 1 sec 8.
This case is a prime example of why "original intent" is at best a silly notiion, at at its worst places the safety and peace of the people in peril.
posted on April 4, 2002 12:56:31 PM new
Bor- Do you really think that weapons that Americans might leagally possess are any threat to our National military ?
The Iraqi army was better outfitted that even the most rabid gun nut and they were ineffective and decimated with few US casualities.
You can also see the shift from tyranny of the Federal govt to tyranny of the state govt in the court cases.
So what reason can there be for an armed population ?
Personal protection ? Use a stun gun ? Or be allowed to have one handgun ?
Constitutionally it appears original intent means that the Federal govt doesn't have a role in gun control. Later cases intrepret that the Fed does have a role in all areas outside gun possession while the citizen is engaged in a state regulated militia.
The gun lobby wholly misconstrues the 2nd Amend intent of the framers as applied to states, the judiciary is all over the field on why the Feds can or can not regulate gun ownership.
If it is ever determined to be strictly a state issue- which is not impossible with "original intent" justices like Scalia, Rhenquist, and whoever they can get to tag along, do you think that the Fed and other states would sit idle if Nevada or Arizona alowed automatic weapons without permits ? How about anti tank or Stinger missles as one judge seems to think would be OK since they would be seen as typical arms of the state militia- at least in the 1930's?
I think the bottom line is that the Supreme Court does not want any 2nd Amend cases to be on the docket, and leave the states to their own devices in regulating weapons.
The alternative is that the "original intent" crowd will either have to let the states regulate weapons as they please, or abandon "original intent" and apply the 2nd Amend to the states. They also do not want to visit the Commerce Clause and its use for Federal weapons regulations.
posted on April 4, 2002 01:12:50 PM new
plsmth,
You're right. I've never heard any news of that town, even when the media was doing very heavy coverage of the issue of gun ownership. I'll bet they even say "please and thank you" when they argue with each other.
posted on April 4, 2002 01:17:17 PM new
I don't think the feds would let one state go it's own way on this anymore than they will allow Oregon to allow meds used for assisted suicide.
They are used to being in the driver's seat and controling everything now and it is too late to turn that around. They mostly control by the purse strings. If you send off 1/3 of your income to them you pretty much would be ruined if you don't get most of it back.
posted on April 4, 2002 01:43:41 PM new
The Federal dollars is one of their tools to keep the states in line. They can control everything in the state from schools to speed limits to DUI levels just by the threat of withholding funds.
The Commerce Clause has also been a heavy hitter for the Feds. Anything in the stream of interstate commerce, the Feds can regulate. The Supreme Court has been all over the spectrum on what is or is not in the "stream of interstate commerce".
But I guess when all is said and done, I'll opt for the Federal govt and the Constitution over private concerns or state and local yahoos.
If the Feds screw you, it makes national and international news. If the city or state screws you, no one hears about it.
posted on April 4, 2002 01:51:49 PM new
I've always believed that the original intent of the founding fathers in framing our constitution and its amendments was to avoid tyranny as they had experience it in the old country. In other words, we really don't want an excess of gov't control and regulations in any area. We would lose our freedoms.
That man was in trouble for taking a gun from one state to another? Can you imagine having border checks at each state line to declare any weapons? Isn't the issue "concealed" weapons as opposed to owning or transporting a weapon?
I understand it would be laughable for people to rush out in defense of invaders carrying the prescribed muskets and ammo, but that may have been considered a top defence weapon at that time. Has this been replaced with another weapon description. How can an average citizen know what is acceptable/legal?
posted on April 4, 2002 02:32:38 PM new
The problems you describe are the problems of having a patchwork of local and state laws.
As far as "How can an average citizen know what is acceptable/legal?", h*ll, most lawyers don't really know "what the law is"- they only know what it was. The only thing a lawyer can offer is an informed opinion and hope the courts would agree with it. But in any event, the citizen is held accountable for "knowing the law", even though most of our "top legal minds" on the bench can't agree on what is or should be the law in many cases. And in every case at least one lawyer was wrong.
Personally, I think states are nearly obsolete. I have more interaction with the Federal govt than my state. The state offers few if any protections that the Feds don't already offer. I find the crooks worse at the town hall and state house than in the Federal govt. At least the Feds are in the press spot light, the state and local politicians never have a light shown on them. A Federal Republic would simplify taxes, services, transportation, moving, do away with states competing against each other for gambling or other business, etc.. The only thing I would change is the Fed Rep figures- have a Rep for every 50,000 or 100,000 in population. Get rid of state govt, the Federal Senate, and just have local govt under the direct thumb of the Feds.
I couldn't tell you what any state govt provides its citizens that is necessary.
posted on April 4, 2002 02:59:32 PM new
"I couldn't tell you what any state govt provides its citizens that is necessary."
taxes. Oh, sorry, you said NECESSARY.
"But in any event, the citizen is held accountable for "knowing the law", even though most of our "top legal minds" on the bench can't agree on what is or should be the law in many cases."
If ignorance of the law is no excuse, but the law is to complex for judges and lawyers to interpret; this put citizens in a vise. How can you be found "guilty" of breaking a law when the law was unknown or unclear?
Consider this: nothing is ever an "accident" anymore. Someone MUST be at fault. Ex: My son was mauled by a friend's dog in their yard. It was an accident, IMO; the boys were playing & the dog went nuts. Our lawyer was annoyed because we wouldn't sue, only wanted medical compensation. However, through every "counseling" session she kept saying, "I'm not allowed to give you advise." Huh? That's why we hired her, so we wouldn't make any stupid mistakes. I want my lawyer to advise me because I DON'T KNOW ALL THE LAWS. But ignorance of the law is no excuse; however she can't advise me. HUH????
You bring all sorts of irrelevant fooforall to bear..........on what?, including the very case I cited and you've misinterpreted. But now after all of that wasted bandwidth tell me..what part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, SHALL NOT be infringed" don't you understand?
posted on April 4, 2002 06:15:04 PM new
krs, just as before you don't know beans about Constutitional law. You have no idea how the Bill or Rights functions or is applied. You have no concept regarding what part of the Constitution applies to states in relationship to its citizens, and what applies to citizens in any case.
The only waste of bandwidth is your constant and feeble attempts to understand Constitutional law by going to a site and lifting part of a case that you don't understand nor can competantly cite authority.
By the way, you need to write the Supreme Court and tell them about that stupid case you pulled out of Alabama regarding the non-existent rights you claim illegal aliens have, because the Supreme Court just handed down another ruling stating clearly that illegal aliens don't even have the right to back pay after being fired for trying to start a union. The only right the illegal alien had was to be deported back to Mexico.
You're easy krs. You don't have a clue.
edited to add- the "case" you cited appears to be footnotes from a case, and don't address the issue. You ought to try producing a brief sometime with a footnote as your authority, you'll get laughed out of court.
[ edited by REAMOND on Apr 4, 2002 06:26 PM ]
posted on April 4, 2002 06:33:13 PM new
Have you considered that the ONLY way that our most forward-looking Founding Fathers could have gotten that clause in the Second Amendment passed was by tacking on the "well-regulated militia" part? It is surely their intent to allow citizens to be armed. Not just for defense from foreign powers, but clearly, from local and federal powers. However, with the need to obtain the signatures of so many Conservative, pro-English statesmen, it would have been impossible to simply put in that the citizens had the right to bear arms and that could not be infringed upon.
So, whatever arguments you may have, I think that this is the most reasonable explanation for the confused wording as it is.
posted on April 4, 2002 06:44:45 PM new
Bor- You reached the same conclusion as the learned judge in the case posted above.
Alwaysbroke- well everybody - look at this link if you want to see a legal nightmare and how screwed up the legal ysytem is. The story is unbelievable and will make you think twice about anything you post on a BB. Maybe I'll start a new thread with it.
posted on April 4, 2002 08:39:22 PM new
I must say that if I were the sort to want to resort to physical violence to overthrow the government not being able to buy or use firearms would be of little importance to me.
Technology has gotten to the point that there are so many ways to cause damage and death with devices that are far cheaper and more effective than a firearm that that is no limiting factor.
Yes guns are a mature technology and useful for groups of uniformed armed men confronting each other in a traditional war like setting.
However if you are interested in taking out the command structure of government and disrupting their activities and commerce you don't need them.
More important and useful are computer and telephone intercepts. Damage to vehicle parks and fuel supplies. Interuption of power transmission. Denial of trust in food and water supplies. Denial of drug stockpiles and interuption of service from banks and stock and commodity markets.
One example - mate a small video camera to a radio control model airplane with a pound of explosive.
You have a poor man's cruise missle that can take out an oil refinery - a politician's Limo - a cellular tower - or a billion dollar aircraft or spacecraft sitting on the runway.
posted on April 4, 2002 08:50:47 PM new"The story is unbelievable and will make you think twice about anything you post on a BB."
"It's the story of a multi-million dollar lawsuit that has transformed a sleepy online community of aquatic plant gardeners into a hotbed of accusations of libel, conspiracy, defamation, computer hacking, infringement on freedom of speech and even death threats.
That reminds me of all of the silliness that I used to have to put up with for running a chat BBS years ago. The endless bickering, sniping, nastiness; the outright hysteria, the calls for police, lawsuits, and death. Sheese! It's called: GET A LIFE!
posted on April 5, 2002 04:36:49 AM new
You're unbelievably stupid Reamond.
"edited to add- the "case" you cited appears to be footnotes from a case, and don't address the issue"
Which portion I quoted is contained right in the body of text which you cut and pasted above? You might stop and read your own posts now and then, you think?
And now there's "By the way, you need to write the Supreme Court and tell them about that stupid case you pulled out of Alabama regarding the non-existent rights you claim illegal aliens have, because the Supreme Court just handed down another ruling stating clearly that illegal aliens don't even have the right to back pay after being fired for trying to start a union. The only right the illegal alien had was to be deported back to Mexico" ?
What in the world are you talking about, Reamond? Better go get it and refresh your memory.
Now, since one little phrase put you away for hours only to return with a barrage of irrelevant cuts and pastes which in fact have nothing to do with current gun positions held by any court perhaps this little note will keep you busy until I return from Oregon on Monday, eh?
posted on April 5, 2002 04:53:05 AM new
Oh Reamond, I forgot; try to reconcile your position. Within one page of posts you've gone from insisting that the states have sole right to regulate arms to the feds usurp right to regulate arms to the states being irrelevant and needing to be done away with to agreeing with Borillar that the founding fathers intended the people to have and bear arms.
posted on April 5, 2002 08:13:49 AM new
Well krs, I haven't offered the positions, the Supreme Court has. You obviously do not understand how the Bill of Rights was interpreted and applied before and after the 14th Amendment.
You apparently think the Bill of Rights prior to the 14th Amendment applied to the relationship between citizens and their state government, which it did not, and is a common mistake of the unlearned.
The two cases I cited show the stark differences in how the 2nd Amendment has been interpreted.
The first shows an incorporation of the 2nd Amendment applying it to states, the second case shows the original intent that the 2nd Amendment only applied to the relationship between the citizen and the federal govt.
The first case also shows the interpretation reaching yet farther into the issue of how gun possession relates to a well regulated militia.
Yet again, when it comes to Constitutional law you are misguided and in the dark.
