Framers' intent still hotly debated

ARIZONA DAILY STAR ^ | 06.04.2006 | Ann Brown

[Rummyfan]

The framers understood that the document would be modified over time if it was to remain relevant.

Sure, that's why the Constitution can be amended!

[StJacques]

The one thing that is clear in the intent of the framers is that they felt that law-abiding citizens could arm themselves. They also didn't feel that gun ownership should be completely unregulated, as made evident in their opening words "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state . . ." (I'm going from memory here).

But with those two points in mind, the only real debate we should be having is over what constitutes the proper mode of regulation -- and we all believe in regulation whether we recognize it or not because none of us (God I hope) would permit ordinary citizens to pack 80 mm howitzers -- and how that regulation can best be implemented.

My own personal take is that no citizen who can prove that he or she is a law-abiding citizen should be prevented from purchasing or owning a reasonable firearm (I would stop short of true military weaponry). No waiting period, no delays, no other preconditions beyond proving they are a law-abiding citizen should apply.

[garyhope]

Citizens need guns for self protection and to keep their government afraid of them.

Would you trust a government led by Gore, Kerry, Teddy, Boxer, McKinney, Conyers, Murtha, Waters, Schumer, etc?

I wouldn't.

[Little Ray]

Actually, the framer's intent is only unclear to folks who WANT it unclear. For everbody else, there are the Federalist Papers, which make the intent very clear indeed.

[Dead Corpse]

I've been reading Elliot's Debates. Basically, the minutes of the First Congress, where they were discussing the New Republic, the limits of the Federal Power, the usurpation of State powers left over from the Confederacy, the protections of fundamental Rights to prevent States and cities from infringing on those Rights REQUIRED to be considered "free", ect...

Today's government bears ZERO resemblance to what the Founders set up and argued about.

[NY.SS-Bar9]

A private business on the other hand isn't bound by the Bill of Rights.

This person shows a complete ignorance of what thie BOR is. People are not bound by the bill of rights, Government is restricted by it.

[Rummyfan]

"No one has ever described the Constitution as a marvel of clarity, and the Second Amendment is perhaps one of the worst drafted of all its provisions," noted Sanford Levinson of the University of Texas at Austin School of Law

This bozo has the nerve to call himself a law professor? Students at UT Law, you deserve a refund. The Constitution has stood for over two hundred years. How many other Western democracies can say that they have been under the same governing document for that time? And contrary to Levinson's statement it is actually a marvel of clarity, when one discounts emanations from the penumbras!

[tcostell]

In the twentieth century, estimates are that 34 million people were killed in wars.

The same study estimates that 196 million people were killed by their own governments.

To all the liberal lurkers: you may say you hate war, but defending yourself in war is better than being quietly killed because of your politics.

Arm everyone.

[beltfed308]

This bozo has the nerve to call himself a law professor? Students at UT Law, you deserve a refund.

You got that right! If the stakes were not so high it would be hilarious.

[INSENSITIVE GUY]

It is the right of the PEOPLE WHO BEAR ARMS because it is THEY who make up the militia.The founding fathers never had a national guard in the official sense and they never intended the constitution to be changed.The possibility of change is a liberal lie because they believe the constitution to be a "living document",therefore using this fallacy to create gun control.

[StJacques]

"Actually, the framer's intent is only unclear to folks who WANT it unclear. For everbody else, there are the Federalist Papers, which make the intent very clear indeed."

I liked that so much I decided it should be repeated.

And we also have James Madison's Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787

[NY.SS-Bar9]

My own personal take is that no citizen who can prove that he or she is a law-abiding citizen should be prevented from purchasing or owning a reasonable firearm (I would stop short of true military weaponry). No waiting period, no delays, no other preconditions beyond proving they are a law-abiding citizen should apply.

The framers intended (and the USSC has ruled in Miller) that the 2A applies to arms commonly in use by the military. The true test is whether or not the weapon is "discriminatory". A rifle would be OK, things like land mines and bombs not.

[Fighting Irish]

While the topic is clear, the amendment is fraught with ambiguity and has been subject to conflicting interpretations and often acrimonious debate

The Amendment is clear. What is fraught with ambiguity are the morons (liberals) who cannot read.

[CrawDaddyCA]

The murky language of the Second Amendment has created a battle line between both sides of the packing-heat or pack-them-away debate.

Murky? 'Shall NOT be infringed' is clear and unambiguous language. Only those against the 2nd Amendment would try to redefine it.

Molon labe!!

[beltfed308]

Love your tag line!

[Dead Corpse]

Read it plain. Like the Founders said to. "Supreme Law of the Land" means exactly that. "... or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding" also means EXACTLY that. When it also states, "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED", with no qualifier on who may not do the infringing, then even a City's "home rule" provision shouldn't be able to nullify that Right's protection.

If your local ordnance says "no open carry of handguns", that is plainly an "infringment". If your States requires you to prove your innocence and pay extra taxes and fines to exercise said Right, that is ALSO an "infringement" as well as a violation of self incrimination.

The current legal fiction does not adhere to this. Nor will you find many justices willing to uphold their Oath under the Constitution and rule this way. The government has entirely too much to lose should things return to the way they should be.

[EdReform]

read later

[JamesP81]

But with those two points in mind, the only real debate we should be having is over what constitutes the proper mode of regulation -- and we all believe in regulation whether we recognize it or not because none of us (God I hope) would permit ordinary citizens to pack 80 mm howitzers -- and how that regulation can best be implemented.

Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People. --Tench Coxe

I think it was fairly clear that the founders intended the militia to have access to modern military arms, and that the militia did not answer to the government.

IOW, yes, if some people got together to form a civil militia then it should legally be allowed to procure field artillery if it so decided. As long as it was well-regulated, and by that I mean reasonably disciplined, the government wouldn't legally have a leg to stand on. That, of course, wouldn't stop them from arresting everyone involved.

[Wonder Warthog]

"...and we all believe in regulation whether we recognize it or not because none of us (God I hope) would permit ordinary citizens to pack 80 mm howitzers -- and how that regulation can best be implemented."

Learn history. "Back in the day", private individuals and institutions were allowed to do EXACTLY that. What do you think those PRIVATE sailing ships were armed with?? Spit-ball shooters???

[StJacques]

"The framers intended (and the USSC has ruled in Miller) that the 2A applies to arms commonly in use by the military. The true test is whether or not the weapon is "discriminatory". A rifle would be OK, things like land mines and bombs not."

I accept that as sounding about right. I have read commentaries and heard discussions of Miller, but I have never read the text of the decision itself and on important matters I generally like to see for myself what is stated. But I have little doubt that some standard rational beings could recognize as "reasonable" [I do not necessarily refer to libs as "rational beings"] has been applied as the basis for regulation.