Charles replied:
> > The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; > > a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a > > free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms > > shall be compelled to render military service in person. > > You bring up a good point. I'm now going to go out on a limb, not > having read the article. > > The fact that Congress struck the last clause suggests a preference of > some sort for defense over religious conscience. Perhaps. IIRC a conscientious objector clause for the revised Second Amendment was proffered during debates, and was voted down. I could incompletely argue that since militias were state organizations and that since the Second Amendment was designed in part to preserve these state organizations, any conscientious objector rules were deferred to the states. As an aside (and I'm sure most folks on this forum are aware) there was an attempt in the Senate to add "for the common defense" to the Second Amendment, and it was voted down - a fact I found not well represented in Heller briefs. Guy Smith Author of Shooting The Bull <http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0983240701/> and Gun Facts <http://www.gunfacts.info/>
_______________________________________________ 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.
