Re: The REPUBLICAN ... from New York.

[Jon Roland]

Peter Boucher wrote: Jon seems to be arguing that the 2nd Amendment is about protecting federal militia against being disarmed by the states.  Did I get that right, Jon? Partly and almost right. The wording of the 2nd Amendment is a command, as I read it in the context of what else was written on the subject in the Founding Era, not just to Congress not to legislate infringements, but, when combined with the other Militia Clauses, making it a duty for Congress to exercise its regulatory power over militia to forbid any attempt by a state to infringe on the RKBA. Let's pursue the analogy to the pre-emptive power to regulate the time, manner, and place of congressional elections (except the place of choosing senators). If the power were "plenary" it would authorize Congress to mandate that elections be held within a 1-millisecond time window, or at polling places on the moon, or using only ballots with candidates pre-approved by the Party in power. Clearly, exercising the power in that way would be an abuse of legislative discretion, and justiciable as a constitutional violation. It would be regulation in the wrong direction. Now suppose a state tried to impose similar restrictions on voting. At that point Congress would have not just the power but the duty to step in with regulations that would don things like keep the balloting open, allow write-ins, ballot in secret, count the votes accurately, and have polling places in every precinct of 3000 persons. By analogy, firearms may only be regulated in a way that makes militia more effective. Indeed, from some of the writings of the era, we can conclude that the standard of readiness was that militia must always be able to prevail over any standing army. So what about local or private regulation of firearms? May they be forbidden from a courthouse, or by a landowner on his private property? Yes, because the government or landowner can assert that entrance onto the property constitutes acceptance of a call-up that prevails while he remains there. However, while there is no duty of government officials to defend persons who have the right to defend themselves, if government or private parties deny the means for self-protection they must assume liability for their protection. Can't have it both ways. Deny the RKBA to someone on your premises and you have to guard him. Of course, all this may see strange to modern readers, but it is consistent with constitutional thinking. -- Jon ---------------------------------------------------------------- Constitution Society 7793 Burnet Road #37, Austin, TX 78757 512/299-5001 www.constitution.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.