Posted on 03/16/2005 12:51:41 PM PST by HereComesTheGOP
Pittsburgh (KDKA) A deadly shooting outside Carrick High School this afternoon has put the school on lockdown.
Officials have confirmed that one student is dead and two others were wounded in the shooting around 2pm.
According to authorities, police stopped a car outside the school and were running a check on its license plate when another vehicle pulled up and started shooting at the car.
One juvenile in the car was shot in the head and killed; a second juvenile was critically injured by gunshots. A third juvenile in the car was injured by flying glass. Authorities believe all three were Carrick High School students.
Police say the shooting may have involved an AK-47.
As a precaution, students have been kept inside the building past their normal 2:17pm dismissal while police officers swarmed the area; but they're expected to be released within the hour.
More than 1300 students in ninth through twelfth grades are enrolled at Carrick High School, which is located on Parkfield Street.
Which is why I was hoping he would point it out. ;-)
Nope. Saw a BATF agent do it about three years ago. Of course, they released the person when they discovered that it *wasn't* a machine gun, just a semiauto.
No, you're trying to play some little gotcha game, where if you ask enough technical questions, sooner or later you think I'll get one wrong, and then you can claim that what I've said before doesn't mean anything because I'm 'ignorant'.
I've made plenty of posts to this thread, my positions and arguments are pretty clear for those who take the time to read them, and speak for themselves. So I'm not going to waste time arguing in circles with you.
“Other than the reply above this one that cites Miller?“
The exact quote from Miller is “In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v.State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158.”
Miller never mentioned cannon, letters of margue, etc.
”The Act in question was the Militia Act of *1792*; it was passed to establish a *minimum* standard of equipment that a militia should have and appear with when summoned. Many militias at the time did not have full equipment for every man, and several states had a cheeseparing attitude towards supporting them -officers and men were not paid for their service, there was no consistency in their treatment or regulations, etc, etc, “
The militia act of 1792 says exactly
“I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a power of power; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.”
Show me where it SAYS that these are either minimums of maximums. In fact, such ideas are only implied where amounts of ammunition are discussed. Also note, there is no mention of cannon.
”The act, by the way, acknowledges that there are private artillery corps: “
What the act says is:
“IV. And be it further enacted, That out of the militia enrolled as is herein directed, there shall be formed for each battalion, as least one company of grenadiers, light infantry or riflemen; and that each division there shall be, at least, one company of artillery, and one troop of horse: There shall be to each company of artillery, one captain, two lieutenants, four serjeants, four corporals, six gunners, six bombardiers, one drummer, and one fifer. The officers to be armed with a sword or hanger, a fusee, bayonet and belt, with a cartridge box to contain twelve cartridges; and each private of matoss shall furnish themselves with good horses of at least fourteen hands and an half high, and to be armed with a sword and pair of pistols, the holsters of which to be covered with bearskin caps. Each dragoon to furnish himself with a serviceable horse, at least fourteen hands and an half high, a good saddle, bridle, mail-pillion and valise, holster, and a best plate and crupper, a pair of boots and spurs; a pair of pistols, a sabre, and a cartouchbox to contain twelve cartridges for pistols. That each company of artillery and troop of house shall be formed of volunteers from the brigade, at the discretion of the Commander in Chief of the State, not exceeding one company of each to a regiment, nor more in number than one eleventh part of the infantry, and shall be uniformly clothed in raiments, to be furnished at their expense, the colour and fashion to be determined by the Brigadier commanding the brigade to which they belong.”
It mentions corps of artillery BUT says these are to be manned from the general milita and then goes on to advise how these militia members are to be armed, at their own expense, and again specific small arms are mentioned. There is no mention as to the size of these units or the number and types of artillery provided nor is there any mention anywhere in the law about anyone arriving at muster with a cannon. On the contrary, such artillery was generally provided by the state itself and was stored in state or town run armories. As you note here…
"And whereas sundry corps of artillery, cavalry and infantry now exist in several of the said states, which by the laws, customs, or usages thereof, have not been incorporated with, or subject to the general regulation of the militia.
"XI. Be it enacted, That such corps retain their accustomed privileges subject, nevertheless, to all other duties required by this Act, in like manner with the other militias."
Non militia artillery units existed and were recognized, but you fail to note that these units are acknowledged to be SEPARATE from the militias formed by the Militia Act and covered by the second amendment. In addition, you make no link from these existing separate militias to the militia protected by the second.
They existed, but are they protected. If so, what is your proof. The simple existence of a thing, legally held, does not mean that the item is protected under the second amendment.
”It should also be mentioned that private artillery ownership was the issue that triggered the Texas War For Independence. The Texas settlers had a cannon for defense, the Mexican Army decided that they didn't need it and came to take it from them, and the rest is history. Why does this matter? Because shortly after that, *the citizens of Cincinnatti* donated two of their privately owned cannons to Sam Houston to aid his cause.”
My VFW has a whopping big cannon on its front lawn. Does that mean that the VFW has a constitutional protected second amendment right to own or fire it? If so, show me the proof.
Again, the simple existence of something does not make it protected by the constitution. I do not deny that cannon was held in private hands. Cannon are today held in private hands. I cannot find evidence that such ownership is in anyway protected. No founder spoke ot a "right" to keep artillery.
No 'gotcha' game. Just identify which one you think is the machine gun, which one is the AK, and which one is the innocuous target rifle. This isn't even a technical question; I'm not going to ask you any questions beyond this one. Your answer will speak volumes all by itself.
"In combination with the second, ninth, and tenth amendments, the meaning of the letters of marque clause clearly indicates that private possession of artillery -or destructive force equivalent to the power and mobility of a fully armed warship of that era- is a right of the individual.You refer to a basic minimum standard as if it is a maximum legal limit. This is like arguing that the seventh-grade public education syllabus is the maximum that a child is permitted to learn. This is so obviously and patently stupid that I find it difficult to address your point of view with any respect."
No reason to get nasty. Just because I ask you to prove your case and minimum/maximum is alll you can come up with is not reason to get emotional.
If you have a real constitutional or legal case, make it. If not, spare me the silliness of personal insults.
Can you cite your body of law where rights under the 2nd, 9th ot 10th have been upheld in the manner you state?
"There are many others - look 'em up. The argument that the founders only refer to small arms when talking about the militia is disingenuous. Show me where they talk about the army having artillary, etc. Or do you think that the two above only meant for the army to be armed with swords?"
I have looked them up. I find an absolute lack of the words "cannon" or "artillery" used when discussing the second. Can you provide a quote?
If not, then I contend you are simply speaking of small arms.
oh, you are one of those.
one who thinks case law trumps the clear meaning of the constitution.
that is a basic minimum standard. do you have any idea what "basic minimum standard" means?
No, I am one of those who beleive the founders said and meant exactly what wrote. If you can produce evidence that they ever wrote of the right as you believe it to be, then show me. If not, then you are guilty of writing in meaning that is simply not there, just as the supremes did on abortion. They wanted there to be such a right so they "found" one minus evidence that such a right was intended.
Produce a case, not just an opinion.
"that is a basic minimum standard. do you have any idea what "basic minimum standard" means?"
I do regognize the difference between what is written in the quote and a phrase you insist on inserting in the act that simply is not there
Your position, then, is that we have no rights other than those explicitly granted by the Constitution?
This is exactly why many of the founders were against the ides of a "Bill of Rights" in the first place. Try viewing the Constitution as a document constructing a government and granting it certain powers. There is no power granted anywhere for the Federal gov't to outlaw private possession of anything.
Your argument is like citing the existence of alcohol during the founding of the nation, but allowing its prohibition through statute because the Constitution does not grant a right to possess alcohol.
SD
I do regognize the difference between what is written in the quote and a phrase you insist on inserting in the act that simply is not there
So your position is that if a militiaman showed up with three flints, he would be found in violation of this act?
SD
Amendment II: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Article I, Section 8, Clause 11: "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"
A letter of marque inherently assumes that the privately owned ship granted the letter is armed with effective weapons; specifically artillery.
From the Letter of Marque granted to the brig Prince of Neufchatel during the war of 1812:
***
James Madison, President of the United States of America,
To all who shall see these presents, Greeting:
BE IT KNOWN, That in pursuance of an act of congress, passed on the 26th day of June one thousand eight hundred and twelve, I have Commissioned, and by these presents do commission, the private armed Brig called the Prince de Neufchâtel of the burden of three hundred & Nineteen tons, or thereabouts, owned by John Ordronaux & Peter E. Trevall of the City & State of New York and Joseph Beylle of Philadelphia in the State of Pennsylvania Mounting eighteen carriage guns, and navigated by one hundred & twenty nine men, hereby authorizing Nicholas Millin captain, and William Stetson lieutenant of the said Brig and the other officers and crew thereof, to subdue, seize, and take any armed or unarmed British vessel, public or private, which shall be found within the jurisdictional limits of the United States, or elsewhere on the high seas, or within the waters of the British dominions, and such captured vessel, with her apparel, guns, and appurtenances, and the goods or effects which shall be found on board the same, together with all the British persons and others who shall be found acting on board, to bring within some port of the United States; and also to retake any vessel, goods, and effects of the people of the United States, which may have been captured by any British armed vessel, in order that proceedings may be had concerning such capture or recapture in due form of law, and as to right and justice shall appertain.
The said Nicholas Millin is further authorized to detain, seize, and take all vessels and effects, to whomsoever belonging, which shall be liable thereto according to the law of nations and the rights of the United States as a power at war, and to bring the same within some port of the United States, in order that due proceedings may be had thereon.
This commission to continue in force during the pleasure of the president of the United States for the time being.
GIVEN under my hand and seal of the United States of America, at the City of Washington, the twelfth day of December in the year of our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and fourteen and of the independence of the said states the thirty ninth.
BY THE PRESIDENT James Madison
Jas. Monroe Secretary of State.
***
Madison was a founder. The weapons are specifically recognized and enumerated. The letter recognizes the right of the private owner to carry these weapons.
Go away.
“Your position, then, is that we have no rights other than those explicitly granted by the Constitution? “
My position is that there are no Constitutional rights other than those explicitly spelled out in the Constitution and that these rights are only restrictions on government. You have a host of rights coming all the way from God but unless those rights are mentioned in the Constitution, government can and does restrict them.
“There is no power granted anywhere for the Federal gov't to outlaw private possession of anything.”
Don’t tell me, tell the feds. There is also little in the Constitution that protects specific stuff either. Besides, these other rights to, say property, are not the 2nd, which is the issue under discussion. Do you have a right to own a cannon under the protection of the second amendment? The answer is no because there is no record of such a weapon being included.
“Your argument is like citing the existence of alcohol during the founding of the nation, but allowing its prohibition through statute because the Constitution does not grant a right to possess alcohol.”
You forget, long before the feds banned booze, many, many states had done it and done it completely legally. Many ban it today. Alcohol is not protected by name in the constitution. Guns are. State statures that ban small arms suitable for militia use are, in my view, unconstitutional. Now all I have to do is get a court to agree. I believe I have a better chance than you do protecting your cannon.
ok, jimbo, here is a primer on what the founders meant, relying as much as is possible on the Constitution itself, utilizing reading comprehension and simple logic:
1. Article I, Section 8:11
(Congress shall have the power) To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water
reading comprehension: Congress can issue permits to private individuals and corporations to attack the military and private possessions of foreign powers.
simple logic: to do so would require that these privateers have requisite arms. There is no mention anywhere in the Constitution of the government providing said arms to the privateer. Ergo: the privateer must be expected to have those arms in his private possession. Clearly, the Constitution implicitly recognizes a private individual right to own and operate heavy cannon or their equivalent.
2. AMENDMENT II
A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Reading comprehension:
well-regulated = well trained, equipped and functioning in a proper manner
Militia = for a definition of Militia as meant at the time, I must depart from the Constitution for a moment: Title 10, Sec. 311(a) U. S. Code- "The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age...."
being necessary to the security of a free State = A Free State is secure if it is able to defend itself against foreign invasion and the tyranny of its own government. This is indisputably the intent of the Founders, supported by their extraconstitutional writings.
the right = natural or God-given, pre-existing the State and independent of the State, as opposed to government granted privileges
of the people = of individuals, like all other iterations of "the people" in the Constitution - not a "group" of people, the States, nor even "the Militia" as a group.
to keep and bear = keep (to own or possess) and bear (to carry, transport, have at immediate disposal)
Arms = weapons, including but not limited to firearms. Derives from Latin, in which the root word means the weapons and armor of soldiers (including ballistae) as well as the gear on a ship. It has nothing to do with the arms hanging off your shoulders, as the Latin for that is "bracchium"
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED = shall not, EVER, be violated or encroached upon in any way, including nitpicky legalistic wrangling over small-arms vs. crew-served weapons vs. artillery.
Logic: The Founders wanted us loaded for bear, that we the people can be and remain a constant caution and terror to those we elect as our representatives. This is heavily supported by the extraconstitutional writings of the Founders. This purpose logically implies possession of artillery is constitutionally licit, as even then artillery was a requisite of serious battle.
3. AMENDMENT IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people
Reading comprehension: Just because it isn't listed here does not mean the people do not have that right.
Logic: That blows a very large hole in the entirety of the arguments you have thus far presented.
4. AMENDMENT X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Reading Comprehension: If it is not specifically spelled out here, the government is not allowed to do it. PERIOD.
Logic: This blows a very large hole in your arguments, and in the legality of the 1938 FFA and all other federally-imposed limitations on civilian possession of military-grade arms.
By the way, even today, the BATFE recognizes the right to own cannons and artillery - but you're restricted to muzzle-loaders, no breechloaders -essentially, the artillery available from before the Revolutionary War through the Civil War. (Not much changed.)
"So your position is that if a militiaman showed up with three flints, he would be found in violation of this act?"
No, my position is that the act does not speak at all of minimums or maximums. If it did, you would have a stronger case...if the min/max idea was discussed in terms of specific arms, which it was not.
You are creating a false "either-or" argument. You do not allow the idea that not mentioning cannon in the act was purposeful. Cannon were not mentioned in the militia act because no one was expected or required to show up at muster with one. As no one was required to own a cannon but WAS required to arrive with specific types of militia small arms, then you have a hard time including the arms not mentioned under the protection provided the arms that were.
Then, frankly, you have an inverted view of the Constitution. The Constitution grants the gov't limited power. You believe it grants it all power unless specifically restrained. Your view is quite modern and fashionable, but completely wrong.
In any event, the 9th and 10th Amendments still exist. So you're wrong on that account as well.
You forget, long before the feds banned booze, many, many states had done it and done it completely legally. Many ban it today.
Utterly irrelevant. We're talking about the federal gov't.
Alcohol is not protected by name in the constitution.
Then why did it require an amendment to allow Congress to regulate and prohibit it?
Your thesis just fell apart. Thanks for playing.
SD
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.