vision2020
Re: Unidentified subject!
At 12:38 PM 9/21/99 -0800, you wrote:
>"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." (Art. 2) The provision must be taken in its entirety, not
>only to justify the access by citizens to weapons of mass murder (AK's,
>machine guns, artillery, etc.) which have no place in a citizen's home
>when we have democratically appointed police, National Guards and Armed
>Forces [l789 read Militia] under popular controls to secure person and
>property.
And what kind of weapons were they talking about? The same type that the
military had! Contemporary assault weapons. In US vs Miller, 1939, where
Miller was charged for transporting a sawed-off shotgun across state lines
in violation of the National Firearms Act of 1934, it was decided in the
Supreme Court (I won't get into what a dog and pony show that case was!)
that the shotgun was not protected under the second amendment because it
was not a gun that was what the military would normally possess.
[In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of
a "shotgun having a barrel of less that 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 is use could contribute to the
common defense.]
And, in light of the fact that a militia member was expected to be equipped
with the current weapons, it would seem that the only decision to come out
of the supreme court this century about the second amendment would show
that "assault weapons" are intrinsically protected. Recently, a federal
judge in Texas stated that the domestic violence clause in the brady bill
was bogus and, although he was not ruling on it, that the whole assault
weapon ban was quite possibly unconstitutional.
> "We the People ... in order to insure domestic TRANQUILITY, provide
>for the COMMON DEFENSE, promote the GENERAL WELFARE, and secure the
>blessings of LIBERTY... do establish this Constitution." (Preamble) These
>provisions must be weighed in along with that which provides for citizen
>ownership of a firearm for self defense. How can one maintain that a
>"right" to possess lethal weapons capable of murdering scores of people
>within a few seconds is consistent with securing domestic tranquility,
>promoting people's welfare and protecting individual liberty to moving in
>and about our communities without fear of lethal attack?
I know that I feel much safer in Idaho knowing that many people own
firearms and also carry on a day-to-day basis. If some whacko does decide
to waltz down main street shooting at people, he will most likely be laying
in that same street shot by some citizen long before the cops get on scene.
>Let's be
>reasonaable, folks, and seek a solution to the madness through the
>courts.
Once again, since I don't agree, I am "Unreasonable". It is a cross I
often bear. And what solution do you think the courts will provide?
>If and when our separation of powers becomes so eroded that the
>citizen is threatend with being stripped of all exercise of political
>action, then resort to citizen militias with heavy weapons would be an
>option.
If and when this happens--if it is under your program, then we would not be
able to resort to citizen's militias. Remember, all their weapons that are
effective are gone. I suppose they could put up a good show with some
flintlocks.
>But when have we ever, ever been close to such a threat to our
>constitutional rights?
I think we are getting closer each day.
>How dare we take little phrases our of our
>Constitution and blatantly reinterpret their original provisions?
I think this is what you are doing. Reinterpreting it. You should read
the communications between Jefferson and Adams for a good reflection of the
minds of the founding fathers.
>God help us.
>
We agree on that one!
Marc
Back to TOC