Posted on 12/13/2002 5:41:17 AM PST by SJackson
So if they were not 'suitible' then because they were not issued weapons, but are ISSUED now, doesn't that change the position?
Hopefully the Supremes will take this one. At least on the differences in the Circuit courts would be eliminated.
The Ninth Circuit Court needs to become the Nixed Circuit Court.
I want to see Scalia do a jig over the rotting corpse that is this decision from the Ninth Circuit. Perhaps after looking closely at it, the High Court will decide that such a travesty cannot stand.
To show you how stupid Reinhardt was, not only did he take the Framers out of context; he also used Bellesiles extensively.
Stupid is as stupid does....
Be Seeing You,
Chris
Maybe this can help: The Language of the Second Amendment
Methinks the Judge knoweth not where this line of reasoning might end. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that a citizen militia might have need for recourse to such offensive items as machine guns, rotary gatling guns, artillery pieces, tanks, mortars, explosives, and other and sundry armaments. And also rockets for attachment to private planes, perhaps depth charges, (the better to outfit your man-o'-war), and anti-personnel mines, grenades, bazookas, and other useful items.
I think a complete list of armaments needed by a citizen militia may be made by looking over the lists of armaments used by ordinary citizens who have banded together to defend their country in various wars. E.g. the War for Independence, the Russian and Yugoslav Partisans in WWII, the Katanga and Biafra Wars, etc. If these folks had been limited to pistols and rifles, they'd have been swept away in an instant.
Our War for Independence did not start over a Birtish resolve to confiscate long arms at Concord, but the artillery pieces the Colonials were storing there.
Judge Reinhardt has now opened the way for us to again own all these things legally in our private collections as part of the unorganized milita.
Liberals are famous for the unintended results of their actions. Of course, being unable to understand the consequences of your actions is a sign of immaturity and/or stupidity. --In this case, probably both.
I don't see any such conflict, aside from females being limited to membership in the "organized" militia. I'm pretty sure that if women were willing to take up arms as part of the unorganized militia, they would get no argument.
U.S. Code, Title 10
Sec. 311. - Militia: composition and classes
(a)
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
The classes of the militia are - (1)
the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2)
the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia
The first clause is just some fluff setting out one reason why the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, but it in no way modifies the second clause. Think of it this way. Rewrite the sentence as, "Thomas Jefferson has a nice dog, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The first clause in no way modifies the meaning of the second clause.
Article I, Section 8, paragraph 11 of the U.S. Constitution authorizes Congress to "grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water." A "reprisal" means an action taken in return for some injury. A reprisal could be a seizing of property or guilty persons in retaliation for an attack and injury. It could include force used against the perpetrators for the redress of grievances. A reprisal could even involve killing ...Source: The Progress Report, Editorial, "Letters of Marque and Reprisal" by Fred E. Foldvary, Senior Editor, (c) 2002"Marque" is related to "marching" and means crossing or marching across a border in order to do a reprisal. So a Letter of Marque and Reprisal would authorize a private person, not in the U.S. armed forces, to conduct reprisal operations outside the borders of the U.S.A. Such Letters are grantable not just by the U.S. Constitution, but also by international law, which is why it was able to be included in the Constitution. The Letters are grantable whenever the citizens or subjects of one country are injured by those in another country and justice is denied by the government of that country, ...
The Founders of the U.S. Constitution included Marque and Reprisal in addition to authorizing Congress to declare war, so that in some cases, the U.S. government would not have to engage the military and have a costly war. The risk would then be concentrated on those who chose to engage in the reprisal. This empowers private citizens to protect themselves and other Americans.
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.