Blogs 1, Reinhardt 0 (9th Circuit on 2nd Amendment)

Tech Central Station ^ | 12-12-02 | Pejman Yousefzadeh

[bvw]

Note that the Letters of Marque and Reprisal clause shows *clearly* that the Founders where familiar and comfortable with highly effective private arms -- the equal of the regular army and navy arms. They even found employment of such private armed forces a desirable thing by so providing for it.

In fact -- by order of the things as written in the Constitution, and order may be important to understanding -- the provision for use of private armed forces precedes the establishment of a regular army and navy!

[alaskanfan]

"When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British parliment was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually....I ask, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."......George Mason during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

"who are the militia?are they not ourselves?....Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American..".....Tench Coxe, The Pennsylvannia Gazette, February 20, 1788.

"A malitia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves....all men capable of bearing arms....".....Richard Henry Lee of Virginia, Additional Letters, from the Federal Farmer, 1788

[Stanwood_Dave]

I think it very important that all those reading about the “Miller” decision know that when it went before the United States Supreme Court, that there was only one side “Argued and Briefed” the person “Miller” whose case went up to the U.S. Sup. Court, could not afford the coping cost, back in those day’s before computer’s , Zerox copiers, and me think’s mimographs.

[bvw]

Sure, you are right -- Miller was a half-cocked decision all around. Modern military forces use short barreled shot and scatter guns, and they did in the past. Maybe they were out of regular military favor in the thirties -- don't know. But even that little judicial notice, that a gun can be borne only if it is in use by the regular military has no basis -- half-cocked all around.

[Gorjus]

That's an interesting article, though Copperud's conclusion on the original meaning of 'regulated' are at odds with those of other scholars. I guess I believe that the meaning has changed from something more like 'efficiently operating', but there is a larger issue.

Where do the 'milita' come from? They are us, and the regardless of the actual meaning of 'well-regulated', a skilled militia is 'necessary to the security of a free state.' The skills to provide an effective militia are learned prior to service in the militia, by ordinary citizens who use weapons for non-military purposes.

Take out the 'well-regulated' part of the Amendment, and grant to the gun-grabbers their preferred interpretation of 'militia' to be only some formal, government-controlled organization. The 'right to keep and bear arms' must still be an individual right in order to provide the required 'security of a free state.'

The amendment would read like this: A militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms will not be infringed so that they will develop skill with weapons before the militia is needed.

I am not advocating the amendment be read that way, because I think the individual right to self-defense is as key a part of that amendment as any militia aspect. As Copperud recognizes, the right to arms is pre-existing, unconditional, and broader than just that required to support the militia. I'm just saying that even if you give the gun-grabbers their interpretation of 'militia', you still get an individual right.

[Frohickey]

Bang BTTT!

[William Tell]

From the article: "The problem with Judge Reinhardt's analysis is that the Miller Court's discussion clearly centered on whether a particular shotgun with specific dimensions (a sawed-off shotgun) had a relationship to the preservation of a well-regulated militia, with the answer being no. "

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

The Supreme Court found that they could not say whether the shotgun had a use because there was no evidence. There was also no evidence mentioned that indicated that the shotgun did not have a military use. The case was remanded which would conceivably offer an opportunity for such evidence to be presented.

[asformeandformyhouse]

I'm just saying that even if you give the gun-grabbers their interpretation of 'militia', you still get an individual right.

Good point.

[Travis McGee]

In 1790 "well regulated" did not mean "tightly controlled by the government" as it does today. It meant "properly operating and well tuned" as in "a well regulated clock keeps the proper time" and not "a well regulated clock is checked by a government inspector once a week". That meaning of "well regulated" would have been completely alien in 1790.

[Shooter 2.5]

I think we hurt our cause by even discussing the Militia.

I was a member of the Illinois State Militia and I really don't want to have any part of it anymore.

As I said in my previous post, the Second Amendment is in two parts. My Rights to have a gun or any other weapon are separate from anything the state or a Militia would decide.

[Travis McGee]

Why not just go straight to the primary author of the Bill of Rights, George Mason, who defined the militia this way at the Virginia convention to ratify the constitution:

"I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."

This has been turned completely on its head, and now the fedgov wants ONLY public officials (FBI, BATF etc) to be able to possess "militia weapons".

***********************

George Mason, in case the above was not clear enough, also said:

"To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

And I don't think he was advocating that the government should endeavor to enslave the people in that context, as the 9th Circuit Court might choose to read it.

[chuknospam]

BUMP

[Travis McGee]

I like this example also:

"A well educated citizenry being neccesary to the survival of a free nation, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."

Use this example on liberal gun grabbers, and ask them how this can be used to mean that only properly qualified universities and schools and other goverment authorized educators should be allowed the "collective right" to own or read books.

[Joe Brower]

I've also read a textual exercise which disproves the assertation the the preamble has any true relation to the primary clause, to wit:

"The moon, being made of green cheese, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

[Travis McGee]

Ping. Or I should say "Bang."

[Travis McGee]

There is no getting around discussing the militia, because when you choose to focus on the 2nd clause, the antis jump straight to the first with their incorrect interpretation, and those in the middle do not know who to believe.

We do need to define milita, though, as it was precisely meant at the time the BOR was written, to completely separate it from today's two common but incorrect meanings, /1/ the National Guard and /2/ right wingers running around the woods with guns today.

[Vic3O3]

ping!

[Travis McGee]

So if the moon is NOT made of green cheese, then we do NOT have a right to keep and bear arms?

Now I am all confused.

< /sarc >

[Dead Corpse]

The Militia Act is pretty specific as to who the "militia" is comprised of.

In a word, it is US. Using judicial rulings to expand this to the same level as those used to allow women in the military, it'd include them as well.

[Travis McGee]

My point is just that we cannot ignore the first clause based on grammar rules, since that hands it to the antis to mis-use for their purposes, as I told Shooter in #36.

We need to do both, use the grammar/clause arguement, but ALSO dismantle their militia lies.