Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] [POLITICS][RELIGION] a top 20 story at reddit.com...

["Jonathan King" <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On 3/4/06, Vern Green <EMAIL:PROTECTED> wrote:
>
> The ACLU takes the stance, as I have read in the past, that the 2nd
> Amendment only applies to the states rights to maintain a militia,
> e.g. The National Guard". This is why they will not take on any single
> person's right to own a weapon despite the 2nd amendments statement
> that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
> infringed."

So I ask myself why people always truncate the statement of such a
very brief ammendment.  Here's the full text:

          A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security
         of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,
         shall not be infringed.

Needless to say, the meaning of this is not exactly pellucid.  I
always find it quite interesting to see the tactics used by advocacy
organizations on behalf of their ideas.  The NRA does *Not* generally
challenge laws in court, but rather works to defeat legislature in the
first place.  To me, this is the activity pattern of an organization
whose lawyers are not very sure they have a good case, because
otherwise the establishment of a strong legal precedent should be far
more powerful than having to mess around with Congress and dozens of
state legislatures.  If the NRA ever lost a landmark case in court,
they'd be pretty hosed.

That said, if the Supremes had to rule on a real 2nd Amendment case,
my guess is that they might surprise a lot of people on both sides of
these issues.

jking

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion