Posted on 12/11/2002 8:47:09 AM PST by NormsRevenge
Edited on 04/13/2004 3:30:03 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Let's repeat that, if only for our learning impaired liberal schmuck neighbors:
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
There are only three kinds of people who wish this were not so:
1. Criminals
2. Tyrants
3. Would-be-Tyrants
Bring 'em on. Lock 'n' load.
I think that this overstates the decision. The court had no evidence either way and their decision, I believe, was to send it back to lower courts.
It has been some time since I have read the decision, but my understanding of legal procedure is not sufficient to understand what the possible continuations might have been.
Perhaps some legal expert would offer an opinion. Did the Miller decision empower a lower court to take any further action on the case? Did the Miller decision empower Miller to take any further action? Did the Miller decision empower the prosecution to take any further action? I have read that no further action was taken.
Nonsense.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The people are individuals, not states. The people make up the militia, not states. Free states don't exist when individuals are forbidden from keeping and bearing their own arms. There is no security whatsoever when the people can't effectively defend themselves.
The complex subject of the sentence is "the right to keep and bear arms". The preposition, of, reckons whose right it is. The reckoning points to, "the people". The rest qualifies as reasoning for the prohibition on govm't.
Since these folks that sit on the court are not that dumb. They are liers and petty tyrants.
People who are in journalism should be expected to understand grammatical constructs. Suggesting, as this article does, that the two clauses have equal weight in the sentence is a purposeful attempt to create confusion where none exists.
If our Constitution did not contain a Bill of Rights, the author of this article could have found himself hanged as a counter-revolutionary if he had lived at the time of our nation's founding. He, no doubt, believes that the US government won the American Revolution, when, in fact, the Revolution was won by armed insurrectionists who overthrew the established government by defeating the Regular Army of the time. They used weapons which they already owned or which they were able to jointly obtain. The government at that time send soldiers to confiscate weapons from Lexington and Concord. The "embattled farmers" met them at Concord and "the shot heard round the world" was fired.
The statue commemorating these events depicts the farmer, holding his musket and standing next to his plow. It is essential to these counter-revolutionaries that children not be taught these simple truths.
If the Founders intent was to preserve the peoples' ability to protect themselves from any possible unconstitutional future intrusions of the Federal Government (and it clearly was), then a "well regulated militia" refers to a citizenry which not only possesses guns, but which further possesses arms sufficient to defend itself against the Federal Army.
That is to say, guns which are similar in firepower and design to those employed by the military. Else how could these arms, if needed, be expected to repel or thwart the Federal forces?
It is this fact which terrifies the modern-day government and their liberal toadies. But, that it terrifies them does not alter the fact of the Founders' clear intent.
Any attempt on the part of any branch of the Federal Government, be it Executive, Legislative, or Judicial, to impede, alter, restrict, or usurp this Constitutional right of the people should be viewed as treason... and as being punishable as such.
Jefferson said that "The tree of Liberty is watered with the blood of patriots..." and, "A little Revolution every now and then is a good thing..."
Lucky for our gutless politicians, they haven't the stomach to really test those precepts... they have it a little too good right now to go detonating the boat they ride in.
Um, no it doesn't.
The last 60 years.
If it was the first 60 someone might be able to argue that's what the founding fathers wanted. It isn't. It has been only the last 60 that judges forgot how to read a simple sentence and use common sense.
There seems to be something wrong with my eyes. I'll come back in a few hours, and see if it says Laurence Tribe.
The District Court held that section 11 of the Act violates the Second Amendment. It accordingly sustained the demurrer and quashed the indictment.
The cause is here by direct appeal.
...
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.
....
We are unable to accept the conclusion of the court below and the challenged judgment must be reversed. The cause will be remanded for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
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.