I have to agree that this argument seems weighed down with a number of 
conceptual problems - chief among them that the second amendment is based on 
the militia.  First of all, what is the militia?  For our Founders, the militia 
was every able bodied male of a certain age.  Today, militia is a more 
confusing subject but normally thought of as an organized citizen force (i.e. 
National Guard or the few actual state militias).  But more importantly, the 
militia clause of the second amendment is an explanatory clause that does not 
frame the right provided by the amendment.  In other words, the Second 
Amendment would mean the same thing with or without the militia clause.  It 
merely provides context.  It's dangerous to elevate the militia clause to the 
point that it provides the parameters of the right.  Madison proposed to place 
the original draft of the Second Amendment in Article I, Section 9 of the 
Constitution which limits congressional powers and provides such individual 
protections as Habeas corpus and no bills of attainder.  It cannot be stressed 
enough that the ONLY other amendment Madison was going to place in Article I, 
Section 9 was the what came to be the First Amendment - which is universally 
regarded as protecting individual rights.  Moreover, the language of the First 
and Second Amendments is presented in the same manner - "the rights of the 
people".  > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Seek partners for amicus 
brief in DC v. Heller> Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 09:41:56 -0700> To: 
[email protected]> > > On Nov 21, 2007, at 6:20 AM, Jon Roland 
wrote:> > > We are contemplating filing an amicus curiae brief of our own in DC 
> > v. Heller, but might join with others. We will not duplicate the > > 
arguments made by others, but will address the issue of what kind > > of 
regulation of firearms, if any, is constitutional. Our position > > will be, 
only regulation that enhances the effectiveness of > > militia. That could 
include regulation of the safety of firearms, > > to exclude those that might 
be dangerous to their users or to > > unintended targets, but nothing more 
restrictive.> > This would seem to be a particularly dangerous argument to 
offer, > inasmuch as the regulations that paralyzed the gun market roughly ten 
> years ago in Massachusetts were couched behind the false flag of > "consumer 
safety." For example, they demanded that guns have > completely unreasonable 
trigger pulls so prevent six-year-olds from > operating them, and banned the 
sale of any out-of-production > collectible for which you were unwilling or 
financially unable to > provide six identical units to the state for 
destructive testing.> > See 
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3197/is_n1_v43/ai_20389666> > (Worth a 
grin is the included quote from our friend Richard Feldman, > Mark I.)> > --> 
Escape the Rat Race for Peace, Quiet, and Miles of Desert Beauty> Take a Sanity 
Break at The Bunkhouse at Liberty Haven Ranch> http://libertyhavenranch.com> > 
> _______________________________________________> To post, send message to 
[email protected]> 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.
_________________________________________________________________
Your smile counts. The more smiles you share, the more we donate.  Join in.
www.windowslive.com/smile?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_Wave2_oprsmilewlhmtagline
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to [email protected]
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.

Reply via email to