Email address obfuscation in effect -- please
click here to turn it off.
[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
On Mon, 6 Mar 2006, Vern Green wrote:
If you don't mind I will confine it to the ACLU policy as stated:
ACLU POLICY
"The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation
of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v.
Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the
preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for
lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by
individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no
constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." --Policy #47
First, this is an incorrect assessment of this ruling. Second, it is an
incorrect assessment based on many other interpretations of the second
amendment.
The ruling does not say anything about the individual not ever being
able to own a weapon,...
Where does your "not ever being able to own a weapon" language come from?
This is law, Vern, so you have to be precise.
...nor does it say that it only applies to the states as the ACLU policy
would suggest....
Above you said that you would confine your remarks to the ACLU policy as
stated above. That policy contains no mention of "states," or any state,
so I don't know what you are talking about.
...The ruling states that the 2nd amendment does not afford the right of
a person to own a shotgun with a barrel of less than 18 inches.
I think you should read it again. It is here:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=307&invol=174
One question was about the validity of this claim:
The National Firearms Act is not a revenue measure but an attempt to
usurp police power reserved to the States, and is therefore
unconstitutional.
The Court ruled that "the objection that the Act usurps police power
reserved to the States is plainly untenable." Note the lack of any
reference there to the length of the shotgun. This is because the US
Supreme Court makes decisions that have much broader meaning and
significance than that. Yes, the length of the shotgun is mentioned in
the case, but it wasn't a case about the length of the shotgun.
Next the Court deals with the 2nd Amendment issue:
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use
of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length'
at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or
efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second
Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.
Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part
of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to
the common defense.
Note that this is also not really about the length of the shotgun, it is
about the more general issue of what constitutes a weapon that is being
used for "the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia."
The point here is that the Constitutional right to own a weapon is
determined whether that weapon is part of military equipment to be used
for defending the state or nation against attack. A sawed off shotgun
obviously does not qualify as such a weapon, but they do not provide a
list of what does qualify because they provide a way of making the
decision. They go on, but I think this is the most important part of the
whole decision:
The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power-
'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the
Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for
organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing
such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United
States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the
Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the
discipline prescribed by Congress.' U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, 8. With
obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the
effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the
Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with
that end in view.
Note the big ideas and grand generality of the statement; note the lack of
any mention of the length of some guy's shotgun.
On the other hand, the ruling makes it clear that in order to meet the
demands set forth by the concept and meaning of the amendment, that all
able bodied men are required to own his own weapon.
Of course it does not say that. And where the heck did you come up with
that one?
So the ACLU takes this to the next step and says that the 2nd amendment
does not afford individuals the right to keep and bear arms. They cite
this case as the basis of that view, except it is misdirected. Read the
ruling here:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=307&invol=174
Holy crap, Vern, you actually looked it up and you are still saying all
these things?! I'm truly surprised. Maybe you didn't actually read it
and that is why you are free to hold so many false beliefs.
And while this case does say the ownership of weapons is for maintenance
of a militia, the ACLU leaves off the part where every able-bodied man
is part of the militia and as far as I know this has not been removed.
The able-bodied man part is still the main standing of our modern day
draft.
That is hilarious. I searched for "able-bodied" and came up with this
archaic and obviously outdated law about muskets:
That every able-bodied Male Person, ... shall, by the Captain or
commanding Officer of the Beat in which such Citizens shall reside,
within four Months after the passing of this Act, be enrolled in the
Company of such Beat..., provide himself, at his own Expense, with a
good Musket or Firelock, a sufficient Bayonet and Belt, a Pouch with a
Box therein to contain not less than Twenty-four Cartridges suited to
the Bore of his Musket or Firelock, each Cartridge containing a proper
Quantity of Powder and Ball, two spare Flints, a Blanket and Knapsack;
I guess, Vern, you are saying that you believe this law is still in
effect. So tell me, Vern, when you turned 16 years old, did you enroll in
the Company of your Beat and provide your self with your own musket,
powder and ball? If not, either you were in violation of the law, or the
law changed somewhere between 1786 and your 16th birthday.
As part of your reading assignment now, after you sent me to read the
ACLU propaganda one more time,...
As best I can recall, Vern, I never saw the ACLU web page about gun
control nor did I ever direct anyone to that page.
...you should read this:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/emerson.html
This is from the law department of the University of Missouri - Kansas
City. It is a good read on why the ACLU's view of the second amendment
is flawed and goes into rather lengthy discussion on the framers
thoughts about the second amendment.
Warning, it is long, so give yourself ample time please.
I don't know if I'll be able to read all that, Vern (the ACLU thing I sent
was only a 2-minute read unless you are slow). So if you want us to get
something out of it, maybe you can recommend a couple of good paragraphs.
The law that your case deals with, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), is here:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000922----000-.html
----- begin relevant excerpt of law -------------
(g) It shall be unlawful for any person.
(8) who is subject to a court order that.
(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual
notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;
(B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening
an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner
or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate
partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or
child...
to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or
affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm
or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or
foreign commerce.
----- end relevant excerpt of law -------------
My quick reading of your web page suggests that you are telling us that a
US district court judge in Texas determined that the law immediately above
is unconstitutional because it does not explicitly require that the
threatening stalker show evidence of future dangerousness before his guns
are taken from him. The only thing interesting about that is how crazy
the judges in Texas can be.
Mike
_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Home | FAQ | Server | Presentations | Mailing Lists/Archives | Member Tools | Links | Sponsors | Contact