Posted on 05/09/2002 7:02:38 AM PDT by ethical
Pinging the bang_list again, for the mailto link...
--Boris
I'll call 911, but only as a backup. Hopefully my trusty .45 ACP and/or shotgun will have made short work of any intruders.
"The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age..." Title 10, Section 311 of the U.S. Code.
"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." Richard Henry Lee
"The militia is the dread of tyrants and the guard of freemen." Gov. R. Lucas, former Major General of the Ohio Militia, 1832
Until now, through Republican and Democratic administrations alike, the Justice Department has been in virtual lockstep with the high court's position on the Second Amendment, as last stated in the 1939 decision, United States v. Miller.
"The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms." Samuel Adams
So how was "the high court" able to do so if even Congress isn't supposed to be able to do it? Oh, how I could go on...
If I recall correctly, I believe that the Supreme Court ruled in Miller that the private ownership of the gun in question (a sawed-off shotgun) was not protected by the 2nd amendment because it was not considered to be suited for use by a militia. I haven't read it cover to cover yet, but I seem to remember that part of the decision. If that is the case, then wouldn't the ban on so-called assault weapons would not be allowed under Miller?
Three times on my horse ranch in New Mexico, my wife and I had to hold criminals at gun point. Since we were so isolated, 45 minutes later, the police finally arrived and arrested them.
I guess we could have listened to these idiots, but instead of those criminals being in jail today, the police could have placing my wife and I into body bags.
My wife and I made the wise choice!
I will believe that the Administration has good motives IF and WHEN they begin rolling back previous gun laws restricting types of firearms and even magazines.
The cited U.S. versus Miller interpretation of the second amendment is as clear a case of judicial activism (i.e. the judiciary assuming legislative powers) as exists.
By the rules of English grammar the phrase, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..." is not a qualifying clause. Yet by the judicial interpretation cited in this editorial, the right to keep and bear arms only applies so far as it was necessary to maintain a well regulated militia. The judiciary took it upon itself, not to interpret this amendment, but to effectively rewrite it, making "a well regulated militia," contrary to the grammatical rules of the English language, a qualifying clause.
The wording of this amendment does not support this interpretation, regardless of the desire of any judge or justice. Allowing the judiciary this sort of latitude in their decisions is to allow them legislative power. It violates the Constitution's fundamental principle of separation of powers.
Theirs is the type of thinking that think the first ammendment only applies to the mainstream press (or the govt controlled media - but I repeat myself).
This is one method of attack on the control types thinking I never see. If it has been settled for their 'numerous decades' they are admitting that it has been changed from what it originally meant. So it boils down to six decades of violating the right the admendment is there to protect.
I seriously doubt that. There are only 4.3 million members of the NRA. 300,000 in the GOA and maybe a half million in all of the other gun groups combined. For me to think even for a milli-second that some Good Old Boy from any part of the country is suddenly going to get off the couch and take an interest in the Second Amendment is laughable. If the 80 million gun owners would have taken an interest before this, we wouldn't be in this mess.
I agree that militia does apply to every able-bodied man. However, I believe in the framers time that is just what it meant every "man". It's good that it included the term "the right of the people", this way it also includes women.
If anything, this interpretation was validation that every citizen is a member of the militia. Our duties as members of the militia is to keep military weapons for the protection of a free state. Other weapons are not protected.
Is this why many States are trying to ban military weapons and only allow those with no other purpose other than for hunting or target practice?
Next step is to declare all non-military weapons in violation of the US vs Miller verdict.
For this reason, my wife and I only own military style weapons.
Your neighbors should thank you also.
People that delegate responsibility of their safety and well being to others are fooling themselves and risking their lives.
Not to mention that if the drafters of the 2nd amendment had intended it to only be a right to the individual states, they would have written "...the right of the states to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed." In the 10th amendment there clearly is a distinction between the states and the people, specifically: "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.. The two terms are not interchangeable. When the constitution says "the people" it does NOT mean "the states."
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.