At 01:27 PM 6/14/01, you wrote:
>--- 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
"In one respect at least the Martians are a happy people; they have no
lawyers."
-- "A Princess of Mars," by Edgar Rice Burroughs
-- Ronn! :)
