--- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> ----- 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?
>
Dude, don't associate me with those guys. I thought I
already conceded to you that the judiciary is mostly
for interpretation against the 2nd supporting
individual freedoms?
> >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.
>
stop saying NRA, argh! Here's something from the same
site you gave me (2ndlawlib, a site by definition by
lawyers for lawyers)
http://www.2ndlawlib.com/journals/weissrep.html
"Justice Black, in Bridges v. California,[6] states
that amendments are to be read in the broadest
possible scope:
[The] only conclusion supported by
history is that the unqualified prohibitions laid down
by the framers
were intended to give liberty ... the
broadest scope that could be countenanced by an
orderly
society.[7](p.579)"
so, maybe i'm being a bit hard on lawyers- not all of
them are staying in ranks.
> 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.
>
I picked the first thing that google pulled up when I
searched for "2nd amendment rights". Which congress
would you like me to find records from?
Though i'm not saying it, it might sound like i'm
indicting the whole judiciary (heheh) of political
manevering and not doing their jobs. A more clear way
to state it is that the judiciary seeks to expand it's
power and influence, the same that most bodies or
people would if offered the chance. Who can turn down
power? They've made decisions that have allowed laws
to impinge on the 1st and 4th, too.
> >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 charged 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.
please see above
>
> I think I have a reasonable explanation for the
> NRA's
I'm going to start screaming
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.
which includes an organized and unorganized militia.
The unorganized would be anyone between the ages of
... sound familiar? this is all beside the point
that you don't have to be part of the militia at all.
the wording is very plain and straightforward: (from
the same link above)
"These arguments all begin from an unexamined premise:
that the Constitution and its Bill of Rights can be
read in bits and
pieces so that each provision becomes a discrete
passage. Such a reading of the first amendment would
have legislators
proclaiming that individual states can pass laws
abridging freedom of speech, since the amendment ties
its prohibitions of
government action to Congress. Such a reading
would also require a finding that there is no
constitutional requirement to allow
bail, since the eighth amendment is connected
only with "excessive bail."[5]
This "interpretation, " regarding each
provision separately and as a simple sum of words and
qualifiers, rises from a
disregard of the Constitution as the founding
document of America's system of government. The
tendency to regard the
Constitution as a collection of unrelated edicts
often exists in tandem with another narrow view. This
latter view regards the
Constitution as, in general, an expedient
document in its time without the broad principles that
define a concept of relationships
among men. "
> 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
AAAAARRRGGHHHH!!!!
> 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
the foundation of your argument is a comma. I know
you can do better than this, i've seen it. you're not
a lawyer, are ya? ;) darn lawyers.
in the second half should
> not be ignored.
>
Dean
who gets a little huffy sometimes about the bill of
rights and doesn't mean to act like a jerk if that is
perceived
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Spot the hottest trends in music, movies, and more.
http://buzz.yahoo.com/
