----- Original Message -----
From: Dean Forster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 12:01 PM
Subject: Re: 2nd Amendment
> argh, yahoo broke again.
>
> Well Dan, it looks like you've got the courts and the
> gun control advocates behind you and i've got
> everybody else. Your interpretation is incorrect to
> anyone you'd care to ask who studies the constitution
> and the bill of rights impartially -
Well, that sounds fairly loaded. We have a conservative court right now.
Why isn't the NRA getting their case before this conservative court?
>the judiciary would seem to be an exception, why is this?
Because its their job to get it right? Because the NRA misrepresents the
actual consensus judgment of legal scholars? If it were one court, say the
Warren court, you may have a point. But, I quoted from 125 years of court
decisions. Plus, the plain sense of the text is not as the NRA or you
depict it.
You quoted a Senate investigation from '82. I'd argue that those are
inherently political, more so than 125 years of court decisions. As for
the prevailing legal opinion, I've read that it is consistent with the
Supreme Court. Only those opinions don't make it on the "gun rights"
websites.
>The only resolution is to do as Cecil suggested, try and repeal
> the 2nd amendment. Anything else is underhanded
> political maneuvering.
>
Why not accept the interpretation of the body that is changed in the
Constitution with the final say in the interpretation of the Constitution?
Especially, since it is not just one opinion from one liberal court. It is
a body of opinions from courts stretching over 125 years.
I think I have a reasonable explanation for the NRA's reluctance to press
their case in court. Let us assume, for the moment, that people do have the
right to bear arms, but that right is contingent on their willingness to
form well regulated militia. It seems to me that the government has every
reason under the 2nd amendment to be able to demand that people put in the
hours needed so that if the militia were called up (as the National Guard
is), that they would be sufficiently trained to be useful. Further, the
government would have a right to regulate which weapons are appropriate
militia weapons, where they are stored, etc. Sorta like Switzerland, the
NRA's poster child for lotsa guns and few murders. :-)
But, that would mean that the US government could make handguns legal for
officers only. They could require that the people store their automatic
weapons at the armory. I would think that banning rifles would be hard
under this scenario, but requiring a weekend of training a month as a
prerequisite for gun ownership would seem reasonable.
With rights come responsibilities. I suggest that the first half of the 2nd
amendment and the comma in the second half should not be ignored.
Dan M.
