There is NO Constitutionally Sanctioned Gun Control!

Iron Eagle said: "Second, there is no question that the language of the Amendment permits regulation by the government. Sorry, we can't ignore the four corners of the Amendment. "

If the Militia clause were missing, we would be arguing today about whether the founders meant to protect the right of the people to have the means by which they could challenge a tyrannical government militarily.

If the government may regulate arms, then please explain what it is that "shall not be infringed"?

Why couldn't our Founders have written: "The people have the right to keep and bear arms but that right may be infringed for good cause by Congress"? It is not so many words or so complicated that our Founders could not have written it if that was their meaning. That is not what is written.

Instead, our Founders stressed that the people of the United States would never have to fear their government because they would always have the right to have "every terrible implement of war".

There are no corners on a circle and there is no power granted to the government by the Constitution to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

In other words, plain IGNORANCE!

It's not ignorance when Ashcroft advocates it. He knows better.

Because it is a "RIGHT", there is only one reasonable ground for restriction. That is -- when my actions violate your rights, my actions may be restricted. Possession of a firearm -- any firearm, no matter how militarily efficient -- is not a violation of your rights and therefore my possession may not be restricted. "Compelling Government Interests" is just another euphamism for tyranny. Especially when advocated by conservatives who certainly do know better.

I'm asking a simple question because I'd like to know what practical steps can be taken. Whining is getting us no where fast.

The only restriction that I can allow is based on actual behavior of the individual under circumstances which a court would have the right to restrict a wide range of behavior, not just gun possession. For example, a court or other body can grant probation or parole and in doing so restrict the individual's freedoms on a wide range of subjects. If a court can order as a condition of parole that a defendant hold a job, not do drugs, etc., I have no problem with a requirement that someone who has used a firearm in the execution of a crime not possess a firearm. To me, that is a "reasonable restriction" which does not unfairly focus on the presence of a firearm (i.e., you lose a whole lot of rights when you commit a violent crime, not just the right to bear arms).

Another example: a court holds that an individual is of unsound mind and needs a guardian for certain things. I would have no problem with the court ordering that, just as the individual has lost the right to control his financial affairs, he has lost the right to possess as firearm because he is not in his right mind and might harm himself or others.

Short of these concrete examples, however, I cannot imagine what sort of restrictions could be consistent with the Constitution.

I believe we both hold the same (or at least very similar) position on this issue. It is only those who violate the rights of others that surrender their own claim to rights. Since I do not initiate violence against others, I retain the right to possess property according to my own judgement. If I purchase a machine gun, that is my right, and the government must act immorally to restrain me from possessing it.

Gun rights are important because, I think, most of us are resigned to the fact that, despite the threat of ability to do so, one day we *are* gunna hafta shoot the bastards.

That said, I think the issue to grab is that of the media. You cannot have a democracy under the type of media monopoly (or should I say monotony) that we have currently.

Im talking specifically of television. Television *defines* reality in America. So, how do you fight it without intervention?

The answer lies in CSPAN. Specifically in what CSPAN seems to be doing less and less of on Washington Journal:

Allowing callers to voice opinions.

I propose yanking one of these CSPAN channels and putting it under a 24/7 call-in-format where the topics are on the hour and determined by results from phone-in polls.

No guests, no articles. But allow two phone calls at once, one for each side of the issue.

Short of 24/7, Id like to see that done in 4 hr blocks, every other day.

Think 'user driven issues and guests' and MINIMAL MODERATION -- (no curse words the only rule).

your interpretation of the phrase "a well-regulated militia" is coming from a government controlling mentality, when in fact, the phrase was written to mean well trained and supplied, written by men who believed the government had no "right" to infringe the right of individuals over tyrannical governments...

a bit of rust is showing on your iron eagle.

Actually, the federal government would have the authority--Second Amendment notwithstanding--to pass a law something like the following:

No person may purchase or possess in any state any type of firearm if all of the following all apply:

The person has been forbidden from firearm ownership in any state as a consequence of a felony conviction, or because of an unlawful escape from custody.
The person has, within the previous seven years, been incarcerated in a state where he has been forbidden from possessing firearms as described above.
The person has not been subsequently been judicially granted relief from such disability in any state.

Such a statute would be authorized under the Thirteenth Amendment's provision allowing slavery as a punishment for crimes (the Second Amendment clearly never protected slaves!), and under the general provision providing that full faith and credit shall be given nationwide to judicial actions in any state, subject to conditions prescribed by Congress.

The reason why Ashcroft and Olsen filed the brief they did, was because they actually read the entire 2nd Amendment, which was not quoted in this opinion rant. Does the writer need a building to fall on him to see that the Amendment specifically uses the phrase, "well-regulated?"

This is as far as I read. Let me educate you on the definition of "well-regulated" as given by www.guncite.com:

Well Regulated

Of all the words in the Second Amendment, "well regulated" probably causes the most confusion. The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word "regulate," which were all in use during the Colonial period (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989):

1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.
2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.
3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.
4) To put in good order.

The first definition, to control by law in this case, was already provided for in the Constitution. It would have been unnecessary to repeat the need for that kind of regulation. For reference, here is the passage from Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, granting the federal government the power to regulate the militia:

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Some in their enthusiasm to belong to a well regulated militia have attempted to explain well regulated by using the definition "adjust so as to ensure accuracy." A regulated rifle is one that is sighted-in. However well regulated modifies militia, not arms. That definition is clearly inappropriate.

This leaves us with "to adjust to some standard..." or "to put in good order." Let's let Alexander Hamilton explain what is meant by well regulated in Federalist Paper No. 29:

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
--- See The Federalist Papers, No. 29.

"To put in good order" is the correct interpretation of well regulated, signifying a well disciplined, trained, and functioning militia.

This quote from the Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 also conveys the meaning of well regulated:

Resolved , That this appointment be conferred on experienced and vigilant general officers, who are acquainted with whatever relates to the general economy, manoeuvres and discipline of a well regulated army.
--- Saturday, December 13, 1777.

The Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, (1989) defines regulated in 1690 to have meant "properly disciplined" when describing soldiers:

[obsolete sense]
b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare-1.
1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.

The text itself also suggests the fourth definition ("to put in good order"). Considering the adjective "well" and the context of the militia clause, which is more likely to ensure the security of a free state, a militia governed by numerous laws (or just the right amount of laws [depending on the meaning of "well"] ) or a well-disciplined and trained militia?

I appreciate your well-written and cogent response. It is a breath of fresh air. I am troubled by your analysis regaurding militia. Not because it does not make sense, and certainly not because you have failed to define the issue.

But, if we are to apply "well-regulated" only in the context of regulating a militia, we are by necessity falling into the trap that a Militia is a government body. Thus, this notion of the Second Amendment as being an individual right is imperiled.

Clearly, the militia reference was made in recognition of the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Interestingly, most references to militias would indicate men between the ages of 18-45. We certainly have a problem if we only want to permit gun ownership to that small group. So that is a hole in the Militia analysis that we must confront. It is not a group right, but an individual right like the other "Bill of Rights" adopted as Amendments. Where is the ACLU to defend our rights.

The definitions you provide are interesting, because they discuss discipline, order, regulation, etc. An argument can be made, and I posit it myself, that order and discipline refer to the right to restrict or limit access to those who are not "well-regulated." Said restriction being in the most harshest of circumstances. As you are aware, the Amendment opens with "A well regulated militia." Next, it includes the clause "being necessary to the security of a free state," Thus, it could be argued that the it is necessary to the security of a free state to have a "well-regulated Militia." That is, they are to be disciplined, orderly, etc. Does that disciple and order necessarily imply regulation? Does it consider enforcement of such discipline and order? How so? Does it contemplate some reasonable restrictions? It seems hard for me to get around that language as easily as others on this page.

Now, do I believe that these restictions should be onerous. No, I think one need only pass a back-ground check for criminal convinctions. If one has a clean record, then his right ss one "of the people to keep and to bear arms, shall not be infringed."

In my opinion, the burden is on the government to prove, under the strictest of scruitney, that such an individual may not keep and bear arms. Thus, I believe that only a convicted felon, or a person under a properly granted court restraining order, should have his gun rights limited, in some fashion. (Which need not necessarily result in stripping one of one's weapons for any time, let alone all time).

Short of that burden, fire-arms, of all types, should be the right of the people to possess and to carry, on their person. Those views are hardly anti-gun. But I think we have no reseaonable leg on which to stand to say that each any every person, under every circumstance, can possess and carry arms. I don't think the Constitution contemplates that, even at the time of its drafting. And, frankly, I get paid to interpret it.

I don't think the Constitution contemplates that, even at the time of its drafting. And, frankly, I get paid to interpret it.

I'll mail you a dollar if you interpret

shall not be infringed.

as shall not be infringed.

How does one weasel shall not be infringed?

I'll mail it back if you read the entire post. :-).

You Wrote:

I have a hard time believing that Ted Olson and John Ashcroft are ignorant about the Second Amendment. Yet, the brief filed by the soliciter general on behalf of the government in the Emerson and that other, companion case said that the current position of the DOJ is that the Second Amendment is an individual right WHICH IS SUBJECT TO REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS.

That addition on the end of the Second Amendment keeps bringing me back to George Orwell's Animal Farm, where the piglet is caught changing the "animal laws"...from "No animal shall ever sleep in a bed." to "No animal shall ever sleep in a bed WITH SHEETS".

It is political hairsplitting which has the result of being able to ignore any restriction simply by deliberately misinterpreting it. Our current government is as guilty of this as the previous regime, except that they're giving a few more concessions to us gun types because they realize that we haven't been nearly disarmed enough and now we're pissed off about it.

That, and there's a war on. They need to work their wartime agenda with lots of restrictions on freedom in the name of "National Security".

As I have said before: Benito, Adolf, and Josef had Gun Control and Homeland Security too...

Another concern of mine is to what use the Government is going to put all of those combat-hardened veterans to once the war is over. It frightens me to think that my brothers in the armed forces would be used against us in a "Homeland Security" capacity, ostensibly for a "Domestic Terrorism Task Force."

DG