Posted on 12/04/2006 2:04:25 PM PST by neverdem
Dynamite and anti-tank rockets are very different things.
Surely, there has to be a line somewhere. Would you advocate average citizens being able to buy nuclear weapons?
Laws that require ownership of firearms, which were common in the early days of the Republic, are pretty sensible.
Not so long ago, you couldn't vote in Switzerland unless you showed up with your military rifle. Also a very sensible firearms law.
IMHO of course.
***The Right to Keep and Bear Arms
REPORT
of the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION***
I still have my copy I bought from the Gov't back in 1982.
***Unfortunately, and I don't recall the specifics as to why, Miller didn't present any evidence of a sawed off shotgun's utility as a militia weapon.***
He didn't show up to present evidence.
You're correct but he did have a really good reason. Miller was dead.
L
At worst, Miller stands for the proposition that only keeping and bearing of militarily useful arms are protected by the second amendment.
The government argued that since Miller was not a member of any militia, his ownership of an NFA weapon (short barreled shotgun) was not protected by the second amendment). (You can read the government brief and other documents on the case at the NFA List site. The Court did not even acknowledge that argument, but only ruled that the lower court should not have taken "judicial notice" that the weapon in question, a short barreled shotgun "could" be used in a military or militia context. (They'd be great in CCB, and single barrel, or double barrel shotguns had been used by the military in the days before the introduction of repeating shotguns) without taking evidence to that effect.
It's a terrible case for setting any precedent, since only one size argued before the court, the government of course. It's also faulty in it's citation and interpretation of the (state court) cases it relied on for a certain amount of precedence.
***In Vermont we have sensible gun laws: NONE!****
So, that is why Vermont is the crime capitol of the US. all the criminals from surrounding states go there to buy guns and take them to NYC. And I thought they went to Georgia to buy them. Silly me. Sarc/ off.
The problem isn't what Miller did or didn't do, it's the twisted assumptions that many have derived from it. These need to be put to bed once and for all.
No. Therefore, there is a need to amend the Constitution. Anti-tank weaponry is EXACTLY the type of arms that should be protected. You may wish to surrender your rights without constitutional protection, but I don't wish to do so.
We should remember that the US is the only nation to have ever used nuclear weapons in war. If Japan had successfully occupied the US and civilians had then obtained atomic bombs, smuggled them to Japan, and used them to end the war, would that have been a bad thing?
Would the insurgency in Iraq be justified in using atomic weapons to rid themselves of US forces? Will they be stopped by laws prohibiting them from using such weapons?
As I understand it, the technology exists to make tactical weapons using nuclear technology. The explosive power can be generated with less than critical mass or with less than the full yield of critical mass. Certainly the higher yielding nuclear weapons would find little use. But the US is using, I think, 2000 pound bombs to take out individuals in Iraq. Sometimes individuals are legitimate targets and sometimes it takes quite a weapon to take them out.
Some of the same people who argue that virtually all weapons should be "regulated" because there is no way that a citizen militia could take on our military, are arguing that we can never win in Iraq against forces which are using AK-47s and improvised explosive devices. I don't agree with either of their claims.
Many did, more after the 14th amendment than before, but after the 14th they had no power to do so. Keeping and bearing arms being one of the "immunities" of US citizenship.
The theory behind banned concealed carry was that anyone concealing a firearm was obviously up to no good. Now, if you carried openly in many states and localities, they'd arrest you for "brandishing" or "causing alarm".
I don't agree. The Court pointed out that people were expected to appear for militia duty bearing arms supplied by themselves. The Court had a duty to consider both of the arguments presented by the prosecution. Had they agreed with the argument regarding militia membership, they had a duty to say so, else they created the possibility the Miller and any similarly charged individual would be acquitted despite NOT being a member of a militia.
After any such acquittal, the prosecution would NOT be allowed to appeal because of double jeopardy protections.
Which means we must find a Republican Second Amendment Absolutist (two of 'em since one has to be VP) and draft them!
"Hear hear. Ya know, having grown up with things like that - I have even more respect for her. Condi's got my vote."
The history of her family and neighborhood made such a permanent impression on her that she still proclaims that she is a "Second Amendment absolutist". When she said of her father that "he and his friends kind of organized a little brigade." Condi was defining the original intent of a "militia".
"It's good to see an academic defend the 2nd Amendment with personal, existential, realistic examples of what the heck we're talking about when we say don't truncate the constitutions for the latest fashion."
Condi does definitely understand, unlike McCain, Giuliani, Romney, and others who want a variety of restrictions or infringements to suit the political crowd of the day. Such RINO's do not understand the meaning of "shall not be infringed".
"Thanks. I didn't know that about Condi"
You're welcome. Many people, even a lot of Republicans, do not know how strongly Condi has said that she supports our Second Amendment rights. The Larry King interview has been buried -- by the anti-gun MSM. That and other info showing Condi's developing stands should be made more public, or at least posted for Freepers.
"Awesome post, thanks for the ping."
You're welcome!
Don't you ever get tired of trying to hash out the same tired, oft refuted argument?
I wish also, in revising the constitution, we may throw into that section, which interdicts the abuse of certain powers in the state legislatures, some other provisions of equal if not greater importance than those already made. The words, "No state shall pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, &c." were wise and proper restrictions in the constitution. I think there is more danger of those powers being abused by the state governments than by the government of the United States. The same may be said of other powers which they possess, if not controuled by the general principle, that laws are unconstitutional which infringe the rights of the community. I should therefore wish to extend this interdiction, and add, as I have stated in the 5th resolution, that no state shall violate the equal right of conscience, freedom of the press, or trial by jury in criminal cases; because it is proper that every government should be disarmed of powers which trench upon those particular rights. I know in some of the state constitutions the power of the government is controuled by such a declaration, but others are not. I cannot see any reason against obtaining even a double security on those points; and nothing can give a more sincere proof of the attachment of those who opposed this constitution to these great and important rights, than to see them join in obtaining the security I have now proposed; because it must be admitted, on all hands, that the state governments are as liable to attack these invaluable privileges as the general government is, and therefore ought to be as cautiously guarded against. - James Madison Proposing Bill of Rights to House, June 8, 1789
"A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular; and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inferences." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787. ME 6:388, Papers 12:440
"It had become an universal and almost uncontroverted position in the several States, that the purposes of society do not require a surrender of all our rights to our ordinary governors; that there are certain portions of right not necessary to enable them to carry on an effective government, and which experience has nevertheless proved they will be constantly encroaching on, if submitted to them; that there are also certain fences which experience has proved peculiarly efficacious against wrong, and rarely obstructive of right, which yet the governing powers have ever shown a disposition to weaken and remove. Of the first kind, for instance, is freedom of religion; of the second, trial by jury, habeas corpus laws, free presses." --Thomas Jefferson to Noah Webster, 1790. ME 8:112
The power of the sword, say the minority of Pennsylvania, is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for THE POWERS OF THE SWORD ARE IN THE HANDS OF THE YEOMANRY OF AMERICA FROM SIXTEEN TO SIXTY. [82] The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. 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 have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American. What clause in the state or federal constitution hath given away that important right.... T he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the foederal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. [83]-- Tench Coxe http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/hk-coxe.htm#FN;F71
The Second Amendment, like Amendments II through XIII, unlike the First Amendment, specifically do not say "Congress shall make no law" and thus apply to all governments or, for that matter, to any organization which could mean that a company or business can not infringe on our Second Amendment rights either. Thus a business or church or school can not say "gun-bearers are not welcome". Thus even a homeowners association or town or county can not, according to the Second Amendment, infringe on our Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
Here is what was said by the US Supreme Court in 1856 about the right to bear arms.
Dred Scott vs Sanford
*** It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and TO KEEP AND CARRY ARMS WHEREVER THEY WENT.
(and more)
A reference to a few of the provisions of the Constitution will illustrate this proposition.
For example, no one, we presume, will contend that Congress can make any law in a Territory respecting the establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people of the Territory peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for the redress of grievances.
Nor can Congress deny to the people THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, nor the right to trial by jury, nor compel any one to be a witness against himself in a criminal proceeding.
I meant " Amendments II through VIII". I should have stuck with English.
Thanks for posting those texts.
Yes you are. State governments cannot write laws contradicting the US constitution. No more on the second amendment than the first.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.