----- Original Message -----
From: camplate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: brin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 10:20 PM
Subject: Re: 2nd ammendment
> 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.
Well, first of all, this subject came up before on the list, so I've spent
some time on it. Second, I'm a scholar, for better or worse, that's how I
write. Third, I've studied the interpretation of literature that is subject
to even stronger disputes than the Constitution. Fourth, those are my own
ideas for better or worse.
There is a popular mythology about the constitution. This is understandable
because it is indeed a mythical as well as legal document. One part of it is
that the constitution guarantees the right for people to bear arms in an
individualistic, unorganized manner. I wouldn't argue that the Constitution
does not guarantee any rights at all to bear arms, but that the rights are
inherently limited to bear arms in a well regulated organized manner.
> 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 ;-)
>
> 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.
>
Yes, but further down the reason is given:
"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.
It is contended that the Illinois act does not conflict with the act of
Congress until the militia is actually mustered into the service of the
United States. This is a mistaken view of the Constitution and of the object
and intent of the law of 1792. The power of Congress to organize the militia
is not limited to a period of war, or to such time as they may be employed
in the service of the United States. It is only the power to govern them
that is thus limited. The clause in the Constitution authorizing the
President to call out the militia and put it into the service of the United
States is separate and distinct from that which authorizes Congress to
legislate for its organization, arming, and discipline. The manifest intent
of the Constitution is to provide for an organized militia in time of peace,
which may be called upon to execute the laws of the Union, and thus dispense
with a standing army."
This is a question, again, of the rights of the various States and the
United States.
> 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.
>
> So this case the SC is ruling that the State can have laws on militias,
but not on private individuals.
>
I beg to differ. It seems clear to me that this SC ruling shows that the
states may not interfere with the rights of the United States to organize
militia. It deliberately does not say that the states may not regulate
individual ownership.
Dan M.
