Framers' intent still hotly debated

ARIZONA DAILY STAR ^ | 06.04.2006 | Ann Brown

[CrawDaddyCA]

My advice to anyone who wants to kill me: Pray that you're successful on your first attempt.

YEAH!!! That's what I'm talkin' about!!

[StJacques]

". . . What it DID NOT mean was that the militia answered to any elected or appointed government official. . . ."

James, I must disagree pointedly with this comment.

The following is from Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution

". . . The Congress shall have power to . . .

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;"

What the 2nd Amendment makes clear is that, in granting this power to regulate the militia to Congress, the people have not surrendered their right to keep and bear arms. The opening phrase "A well regulated militia . . ." only reaffirms what is already in the constitution itself.

[ANGGAPO]

When the Constitution was written there was no standing army or National Guard such as there is today. When it was necessary to repel an invasion, riot, revolt or whatever, large or small, the Militia was called out. The Militia was everyone of age that could help to provide a defense. In order to have the Militia affective it was required that each member possess a gun. The "not to be infringed clause" was to prevent some political hack, that had mischief in mind, getting a law passed that prevented citizens from owning guns, thus pulling the teeth of the Amendment. It's just as applicable today as it was then. If the gun hating crowd wants to do away with the 2nd Amendment why don't they attempt to repeal it?

[neverdem]

"Letters of Marque and Reprisal" are papers of authorization given by the government, which implies regulation, since the legitimacy of action derives from government sanction.

Merchant owners already armed their vessels to defend against pirates.

[JamesP81]

I never said the constitution prohibited the militia from serving the government. At its core, however, the militia remains a civilian organization, not a military one. That is the important distinction.

[StJacques]

". . . Letter's of M&R were authorization for privateers, already armed, to act on behalf of the government in a legal capacity. No more. No less. They were also loot sharing agreements as well. Government got its armed ships, Captains gave govt a cut of anything they captured."

Of course that's what they are and I didn't say anything to contradict that. The point is that those "letters" are issued by the federal government acting under constitutional authority (See Article 1, Section 8) which makes "Letters of Marque" an activity that is regulated.

[timm22]

A Constitution that embraced precise concepts of the 18th century could not necessarily be applicable to a society dependent on cell phones and Blackberrys.

I see this line of thinking quite a bit, and it never fails to exasperate me. The Constitution did NOT "embrace precise concepts of the 18th century." It's not as if the document contains specific requirements for wagon construction or detailed regulations for sailing ship operations.

The Constitution outlines very general, universal principles and guidelines. Power should be separated among several branches. The people should have representation in government. Power should be limited and delegated. Citizens in a Union should be treated equally no matter what part of the Union they happen to be in. The Federal level of government should be supreme in its sphere of delegated authority, and the states (or people) in all others.

The Constitution consists of basic guidelines for the structure and power of government, based on observation of history and human nature. These are not concepts that only apply to the 18th century or that become less valid with trivial developments in technology or culture. I have a hard time believing the Framers, living in the midst of the Enlightenment, couldn't foresee and didn't plan for human progress.

[Recovering_Democrat]

Framers' intent still hotly debated

Not in my household. :)

[StJacques]

"I never said the constitution prohibited the militia from serving the government. At its core, however, the militia remains a civilian organization, not a military one. That is the important distinction."

I got that James. And I don't think you and I are as far apart as some might believe, because you may have read that I am among the first in this thread to make clear that the "militia" are the "law-abiding citizenry."

I can see you're passionate about this issue and I do not object to "passion in defense of liberty" one bit. Keep on goin'!

[Gaffer]

This isn't a rant against you personally, just something I feel about guns and the Constitution.

An Amendment to the Constitution stands as strong as the original articles of the Constitution and the Supreme Court has NOTHING to say about an amendment whatsoever. Leaving an interpretation of any part of the Constitution, other than a very basic literal interpretation is dangerous and is not warranted. Bringing 'intent' and interpretation/modernization/evolution of circumstances is pure BS.

I personally believe the US Constitution is the product of persons with inspiration from a 'higher power' and it does not need determination of intent, divining of "what they would think given the evolution of science/history since then", et. al.

The 2nd amendment guarantees this right to firearms and you can't perfume the liberal lefts' feces-laden attempts enough to where it can pass the basic "smell test"

[kerryusama04]

Ashcroft settled this when he was AG. If the Second Ammendment secures a "collective" right, then so do the other 9 in the Bill of Rights.

[Dead Corpse]

They were permission slips to be pirates. Without which, their actions would have been criminal. If you want to call that "regulation", then whatever flips your trigger.

Inactive militia do not lose their Right to Arms just because they are not serving in an official capacity. The 20k+ laws on the books are by and large entirely unConstitutional and need to go away.

Laws governing the drill, arms, uniform of the day, ect... are all parts of the Militia Act of 1792 and also quite clear that they only pertain to people acting AS an active duty militia.

[wolfcreek]

If the Libs want gun control, fine! They can give up their guns and give them to us.

[statered]

Well regulated menas straight shooting in the parlance oif the day

[StJacques]

"They were permission slips to be pirates. Without which, their actions would have been criminal. If you want to call that "regulation", then whatever flips your trigger. . . ."

Since it would have been illegal for Americans to act without the letters, then the activity is regulated.

[RJL]

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.

Exactly correct.

[Still Thinking]

When he was saying the Constitution is flexible, I think he means that it embodies a set of principles that have diverse application, even in issues that could not have been imagined by the authors.

[Dead Corpse]

Yeah... piracy is generally frowned on. Not so much "regulated" as "unlawful" or "banned".

Of course, with todays asset forfeiture laws, it's kinda hard to remember who the bad guys are.

Also, those Letters were given to Captains and companies whose ships were already armed as the new FedGov couldn't field enough armed ships to fight. Using those cannons in self defense on the high seas wasn't a "regulated" event, nor was simple possession of said cannons. Only being able to attack openly your Nations enemies ships was "regulated" as you put it.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Thanks. I was looking for those references (Tribe, Dershowitz) but could not find them.

[StJacques]

Just a point of no particular significance here, but which I offer to show some personal understanding of this, my Great-Great-Great Grandfather Perre Daspit de St. Amand, served with Jean Lafitte, who was granted Letters of Marque and Reprisal. And we're quite proud of him in my family.