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

["Vern Green" <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

Well, I rarely do that, in fact, I see people truncating the end off
of it more often. Since the statement "the right of the people" is
usually counter to what gun control supporters stand for.



On 3/4/06, Jonathan King <EMAIL:PROTECTED> wrote:
> 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.

Sounds pretty much like just about every activist group out there. It
is much easier to manipulate those who have to be elected and need
money for their election causes than it is a lifetime appointment to a
court. Activism is why we have the political mess we have in those
country. Furthermore, the federal government has stuck its nose in so
many places it should have kept itself out of that now a majority of
the activism takes place at the federal level. It is easier to get a
law passed that effects every state with one fell-swoop than it is to
go to 50 state legislatures and get that law passed.

This is why it is much easier to fight gun control at the Federal
level. If the Federal Government comes out and passes a law that says
there will be no 30 day waiting periodss for instance, that it is
against the law to have a 30 day waiting period, then all the states
that currently require such a waiting period would not be able to
enforce their laws.

I really do not like this system, because it creates an opportunity
for that kind of legislation to go the other way as well as we saw too
often under Clinton.

>
> 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.

At this moment in time it is a toss-up. Chances are they would refuse
to hear the case like they have done so many times in the past, but
there are some cases that could potentially come before the court.

When we look at the 1939 case of Miller vs the US, I found this line
in the ruling very interesting:

"The significance of the militia, the Court continued, was that it was
composed of ''civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.'' It was upon
this force that the States could rely for defense and securing of the
laws, on a force that ''comprised all males physically capable of
acting in concert for the common defense,'' who, ''when called for
service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by
themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.''

So that is an interesting statement, "in common use at the time" you
see the court case that started all of this was over a sawed off
shotgun, it was ruled that since a sawed off shotgun was not in common
use at the time, then the individual was not protected in his
ownership of said weapon.

Interestingly enough, if you read the court's decision another way, it
would require every person to own a weapon that is currently being
used by the military today.

So how would the court rule on a case if it came before them today?
With the current line-up on the bench it might prove to be very
interesting indeed.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/

--
Thanks
F Vernon Green

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