Word up Dean Forster! Don't want you to feel like your's is a voice in the wilderness
concerning this 2nd Ammendment thread.
While we are qualifing ourselves I'd like to point out that I am also not a member of
the NRA.*
(I want to pre-beg your forgivness Dan, not that it has to be given. Your's was the
first post I saw on this thread, and what follows was my immediate reaction, posted
two days late because of ISP restrictions. I did see your 6/12 post which states you
just want more, or better, gun regulations, not complete confiscation. Which I don't
agree with either. I'm just responding to the mis-facts.))
(Excuse the mis-spellings. Going through a pure text program.)
It's almost funny to see a seminar letter like one dated 6/13/01 10:48 from Dan
Minette which gives a scholarly discourse on the semantics of the 2nd Ammendment,
while acting like these are his private, off the cuff ideas. Almost. But even he must
realise that any right so causually dismissed can lead to a government which will
deicde that the rights he does care about aren't that important either. Or maybe not.
You do, Dan, point out that there are 'other readings' of the 2nd, then base you
argument on one comma, and that it basically has to be the way to read it, your way.
Sorry.
On 06/14 12:12 you list the three SC cases that you mentioned in your first letter. I
like how you quietly turn three decisions in 1939, 1886, and 1876. into the '125 years
of consistant intepretations by the Supreme Court' in that e-mail and in 06/14,
13:48. That's about as consistant as Halley's comet. Actually there are more, and more
recent, decisions. I'm just going by what you posted ;-)
First the 1939 case. It states that the case was ruled because of the exact weapon,
not that the court ruled that 'the people' have no rights to keep and bear arms. The
Fireamrs Act of 1934 states that a person can have a pistol or revolover, just not a
shotgun or rifle which can be concealed, and it has to do with interstate travel, not
inside of a state.
The 1886 case is directly against your argument, from what you stated. It says the
federal government may not restrict the rights of the people to keep and bear arms.
This is farther in the text of the ruling:
III. The provision of the State statute which prohibits other organizations than that
of the "Illinois National Guard," from associating together as military companies, or
to parade with arms, without the license of the governor, is in conflict with the act
of Congress for the organization, &c., of the militia, and also violates Articles II.
and XIV. of the Amendments to the Constitution. It may be admitted that Article II.,
securing to the people the right to keep and bear arms, by itself is a probition
against the power of Congress, and not of the States, to interfere with that right,
except when the keeping and bearing of arms is connected with some national purpose.
When it is so connected, no State can pass any law abridging the right without a
violation of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.
To highlight:
It may be admitted that Article II., securing to the people the right to keep and
bear arms, by itself is a prohibition against the power of Congress, and not of the
States, to interfere with that right, except when the keeping and bearing of arms is
connected with some national purpose.
This point was writen about in the Federalist papers. (I don't have source at this
time) The argument was that militias cannot be raised in one state to act against an
uprising against the government in another state. Now many can read that and believe
it means that congress cannot keep the people from keeping arms but a state can.
(Which I think it says also) But the brief says:
Whether a State may not prohibit its citizens from keeping or bearing arms for other
than militia purposes is a question which need not be considered, as the Illinois
statute is aimed against the organizing, arming and drilling of bodies of men as
militia, except they belong to the Illinois National Guard of eight thousand.
So this case the SC is ruling that the State can have laws on militias, but not on
private individuals.
Too late, time for bed. More Saturday.
Kevin Tarr
Trump high, lead low
*My reasons are more straight forward. When you send money to the NRA or AARP or
League of American Wheelmen it's like putting a big sign on your back saying 'Kick my
ass, watch a fifty come out of my mouth!' It's nothing but mass mailings: give us
money, give us money, give us money.....I am a member of my local Sportsman
Association** and Bicycle club. I'll do local level work, let people with more time
worry about the big picture.
**The Sportsman Association promotes hunting, but it also works to preserve forest
lands, game and stream habitats, and a land watch program, because in remote areas
camp vandalism and break-ins are very common, and watching for forest fires, illegal
dumping, and more.
