LETTERS to counter 1994 "Assault Weapons" ban renewal

JB'z RKBA Cafe ^ | 5/8/2003 | Myself

[El Gato]

Yet, they've failed to repeal the Assault Weapons Ban (103rd Congress, 5/5/94): H.R. 4296 (Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act) since then. Way to go guys in making my point for me!

Yes they did, but a repeal was passed by the House (239 - 173), the Senate, IIRC, never acted on it, thanks to RINO Bob Dull. It died in the Judiciary Committee. Headed by none other than anti-arms rights Senator Orrin Hatch, who was latr instrumental in creating the farce of a "trial" in the Senate after the House did their job and impeached the Impeached One. You'll notice that Dull faired poorly in the '96 elections that brought us 4 more years of der Sinkmeister. Unfortunately the anti-second amendment Hatch is still chair of judiciary, so it's almost a sure thing that the extention of the AWB will pass the Senate. You can also bet that "constitutioinal expert" and former KKKer Senator Byrd of WV will vote and push for renewal also.

[Euro-American Scum]

Good thoughts. Snail mail has a much larger impact. Use the format as a guide, do not copy it in full. It is better for the congressmen to realize how deep this affects people in the grass roots.

Great idea. Except sending anything like this to Feinstein and Boxer out here in Kali would be a waste of postage.

[El Gato]

but there was a pledge to do away with the bill that was never fulfilled

That pledge was made by Newt Gingrich and the imcoming House class of the 104th Congress. They held up their end of the bargin. It was the Senators, most espeically Hatch and Dole, that let us down. They also let Slick Willy off the hook, as he would have have to take the heat for vetoing any repeal. Actually he wouldn't, Al Gore would. In the event, Al Gore took most of that heat anyway, but it would have been nice to see him and Hillary, get the full broil.

[El Gato]

generally defining the rights of that government.

Governments have no rights. You obviously haven't read the document in question very completely, or you'd know that the word "right" or "rights" never appears in conjunction with government, either state or federal. Governments have powers, delegated to them by the people in this case. For the federal government this this document and only by this document, specifies those powers. People, OTOH, have rights, and the word "right" is associated with "the people" or "persons" in several places in the document.

[El Gato]

California's ban, which is far, far worse than the federal ban, will still be in effect.

Unless the Supreme Court takes the case on appeal from the 9th circuit and overturns that POC "law".

[El Gato]

war. Neither Jefferson nor Hamilton expected it to last for more than 20 years. They would be astounded that we still feel bound, even to a limited extent by its language.

Riiight. That's why Jefferson wrote:

"On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:449

You'll note that this was somewhat more than 30 years after the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were adopted. He also wrote:

"Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction." --Thomas Jefferson to Wilson Nicholas, 1803. ME 10:419

And

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:45

"One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them." --Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796. ME 9:341

Of course if "times have changed", the Constitution provides it's own mechanism for accomedating that change, devoting an entire Article to the subject.

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

[philman_36]

Following Joe's lead will help towards that end.
Joe also said...
Hell, the people they're addressed to don't really read them anyway -- that what they have all those taxpayer-funded flunkies for!
Now, that may have been said in jest, but he knows what the gig is having played it before.
Making a point about the past will not.
Well at least you understood that there was a point being made.
And with all of the talk of "holding their feet to the fire"...I'm so disappointed.

[philman_36]

Thanks for giving others the history lesson.

[Fearless Flyers]

Great examples, Jefferson firmly believed in the right of the people to keep and bear arms he also believed in the necessity for the people to rise up and rebel against government every twenty years or so.

Hamilton got what he deserved even if it did come from a treasonous bastard like Buhr. If he had chosen cannons at sunrise instead of pistols for the dual he may have lived. He probably thought about that on his deathbed as he relived his military days in charge of an artillery regiment.

Liberals believe in Socialism, because they don’t believe people are intelligent enough to take responsibility for their own lives. Leftists believe in Communism because they are afraid people will take responsibility for their own lives. You fit into one of those catagories.

The government can not regulate the personal defense of the people that is meant to protect the people from the government. You must be a citizen of the U.N., you think like the U.N. when they placed Iraq in position to chair their Committee on Disarmament.

I'm done, your obviously unarmed and love taking it up the posterior, I don't go that way.

[El Gato]

Why should any private citizen own a weapon of war,comparable to the old "tommy gun," except under very controlled conditions? Exceptions would be member of the Guard or active reserve.

Hate to tell you Bubba, but the AW ban isn't about "tommy guns" or M-16s. It's only about SEMI-automatic firearms as well as full capacity magazines.

To turn that question around, why shouldn't a private citizen own anything he pleases, as long as his ownership and use do not imping on the rights of others? Besides, "weapons of war" are exactly what Madison had in mind when he wrote what was to become the second amendment.

[El Gato]

They also let Slick Willy off the hook, as he would have have to take the heat for vetoing any repeal. Actually he wouldn't,

Brain fade. Der Sinkmeiser would indeed have had to take the heat in the 1996 election, since the bill went to the Senate Judiciary in early 1996, having been passed by the house. Sorry 'bout that. Then if the RINOs hadn't nominated Bob Dull, we might have been spared the extra 4 years of the Impeached One.

[Fearless Flyers]

Great quotes El Gato,

My favorite book on Jefferson is "The Political Writings of Thomas Jefferson" Representative Selections edited by Edward Dumbauld, copyright 1955 the Liberal Arts Press inc.

Its part of The American Heritage Series, Oskar Piest General Editor.

I picked it up in a used book store many years ago, the cool thing about it was, midway through the book, where the letter to John Norvell about the reformation of a newspaper is, I found the general editor's Oskar Piest business card.

Trivial note but I think its cool and that’s probably why it's my favorite.

[TheAngryClam]

Probably not.

If, and this is a big if, they take the appeal, I predict one of two things will happen.

One: they'll go 5-4 on a collective right. F**K!

Two (more likely): They'll say that it is an individual right, and use something similar to an "undue burden" test, like the standard for abortion. Following that, they'll say that since there are many rifles similar in function and readily available, the California AWB is not an undue burden on citizens' 2nd Amendment rights.

I think there is almost no chance of the law being struck down.

[RobbyS]

As I have said, I accept weapons that are primarily defensive in nature. I doubt that Madison, who was a very frail, scholarly man, had anything concrete in mind. He was trying to cook up a list of Amendments that would be agreeable to voters in the ratifying states. He just wanted something that sounded good. And has it occured to you that a formula laid down in 1789 might just have lost something of its meaning two hundreds years later? In his time a gun and a horse were possessions that belonged by right to free men and so were denied in many states even to free Negroes. So if you are arguing that we should opposed efforts to disarm individual citizens I am with you. But blame the Constitution if you don't like the fact that the Congress and Executive have a monopoly of the military power.

[RobbyS]

The mode of change is so complicated because the small states wanted to prevent any substantial change. States with a combined 10 percent of the population can prevent its ratification. There was more than 60 years berween the 12th and 13th Amendments, and the radical amendments were then passed because the South lay crushed under the military power of the North.

[El Gato]

And has it occured to you that a formula laid down in 1789 might just have lost something of its meaning two hundreds years later? In his time a gun and a horse were possessions that belonged by right to free men and so were denied in many states even to free Negroes. So if you are arguing that we should opposed efforts to disarm individual citizens I am with you. But blame the Constitution if you don't like the fact that the Congress and Executive have a monopoly of the military power.

No one had a right to a gun or a horse, in the sense that if they could not provide one to themselves, one would be provided to them. The second amendment doesn't force anyone to have arms, nor does it require the government, or anyone else, to provide them. What it does do is protect the keeping and bearing of them by any free man who could procure one. Most did, some did not. Even many pacifists had guns, but strictly for hunting. Your statement that the horse and gun belonged by right shows a common misunderstanding of "rights" as used in the Constitution. What they really consist of are immunities from Government interferance or discrimination. For example, "The right to vote may not be denied ...." in a couple of amendments. Or "Congress shall make no law..." in the first amendment.

The Constitution does not provide that "the Congress and Executive have a monopoly of the military power. ". For example it provides that the states shall raise the militia and appoint officers for it. It does provide that the Congress may provide laws allowing the miltia to be "called up" for federal service, but only for the limited purposes of quelling insurrection, repealing invasion and enforcing the laws, which themselves could only be of limited scope at the federal level.

Lastly if the "formula" of the RKBA has "lost something" over time, then the remedy is clear and provided for in the Constituion. Amend the prohibition on "infringement" away, but don't ignore the Constitution.

[El Gato]

The mode of change is so complicated because the small states wanted to prevent any substantial change. States with a combined 10 percent of the population can prevent its ratification.

And your point is?

I understand the reasoning behind behind making amending the Constitution difficult, and that is was more important to small states, for the simple reason that many provisions in the Constitution, the very notion of having two Houses, one representing States and the other the people, was in part to lesson the fears of the small states that they would be overwhelmed by the larger ones. The concern was so strong that the Constitution forbids even an amendment from changing that provision which grants each state the same number of Senators as any other state.

The same fear existed within states more recently in a city verses country scenario, which the US Supreme court decided by outlawing the very kind of schemes, that geographical verses population, based districts for one legislative house of the State Legislatures, in its "one man one vote" rulings")

So yes the amendment process is difficulte, but it was made so deliberately and for good reasons, not limited to the "small state/big state dicotomy. In fact because of the Article V prohibition on such amendments, it's likely not even the primary one. What good would a written Constitution be if it were as essy to change as passing a law? It would be whipsawed this way and that by the passions of the day. The founders feared pure democracy, and as we have seen, IMHO, with good reason.

[Smokin' Joe]

Did anyone notice how the propaganda war is heating up? Notice that it has taken years to bring the LA Bank shootout to the little screen (an unprecedented time lag).

The cops there got the Stoner designed (now by law assault rifles) from a local gun dealer in violation of the two week waiting period the law required to have the right weapons to return fire. (Actually, I think they could probably have done the job with a couple of scoped 30.06s or .308s, but they got AR 15s.

Back to my main point: does anyone here think the timing of this is just the result of production delays or an accident? Not me.

Maybe Democrats in the White House cause School Shootings, but there haven't been any real 'incidents' for the press to ballyhoo, so they saved the bank shootout for a trump card.

[El Gato]

As I have said, I accept weapons that are primarily defensive in nature. I doubt that Madison, who was a very frail, scholarly man, had anything concrete in mind. He was trying to cook up a list of Amendments that would be agreeable to voters in the ratifying states

I really don't give a flying fig about what you accept. I swore to support and defend the Constitution. I care what it says, and it makes no distinction between offensive and defensive arms. In reality there is rarely any such hard and fast distinction, even in modern military arms. Even an ABM system, which is about as purely defensive as you can get, becomes offensive if used to defend against a second strike much reduced by a pre-emptive first strike. SAMS, also pretty defensive in most peoples minds, can be used to shield an offensive force.

Even at the operational level, defensive actions can be taken in support of an overall offensive strategy. And vice versa.

Madison was doing more than trying to find something that "sounded good" he was trying to find something that would be acceptable to the state legislatures. That's why he borrowed much of the language from similar provisions in state constitutions, or as suggested by both the majorities and minorities of various state ratifying conventions (of the Constitution itself)

One source http://gi.grolier.com/presidents/ea/bios/04pmadi.html had this to say about Madison's "fraility" :

Although Madison was small and unimpressive physically, he had bright blue eyes, a quiet strength of character, and a lively, humorous way in small groups that made him a welcome and influential colleague in many endeavors. He had some serious illnesses, many bouts of a probably nervous disorder that left him exhausted and prostrate after periods of severe strain, and a hypochondriac tendency to "fear the worst" from sickness. Nevertheless, he lived a long, healthy life free from the common scourges of his day and was capable of sustained, rigorous labors that would have overwhelmed many men who seemingly were more robust. He thoroughly enjoyed both public life and the respites he always needed from it on his farm in Orange county, Va. In fact, his physical and psychic well-being seemed to depend on the satisfying balance he attained in this way.

In a sense it dosn't really matter what Madison "had in mind", but rather what he wrote, as amendended first by the House and then the Senate of the first Congress, and later ratified by the State Legislatures.

[El Gato]

That indeed is the tactic taken by the 5th Circuit. They ruled that the 2nd protects an individual right, but the "domestic violence" ban, even as applied to someone with a routine boilerplate type restriction in a divorce decree, met the permissible standard of due process required to remove or in this case temporarily restrain the exercise of a Constitutionally protected right. Even if in the words of one of them, "just barely".

Personally I think the 5th Circuit was trying to set up a situtation where the Supreme Court be faced with a difference in the circuits, but would utlitmately agreed with them on the individual rights question, but would likley overturn the deprivation of such a right with so little due process.