Individual right not just for the militia

O

oberkommando

New member
Anyone seen the recent turnaroud by Prof. Laurence H Tribe a liberal who recently said of the Second Amendment, that it is more than just a militia right. This pissed off a lot of liberals, as you could imagine. Tribe is considered the foremost constituitonal expert with his treatises being quoted more than 50 times by the US SUPREME COURT. With the next president possibly appointing 3 to the court, it is very important who wins this one. With Scalia and Thomas on our side three more would be a lock. We also need to keep an eye on the appeal of justice cummings desision of texas, to the New orleans 6th? circuit court (don't remenber no.) Emerson v Texas, where cummings held the restraining order prohibiting his ownership violated his 2nd Amend. if this holds it could wipe out numerous gun laws as unconstitutional.

------------------
The beauty of the second Amendment is that it is not needed until they try to take it. T JEFFERSON
 
What people don't understand is that back then, during the revolutionary war, every individual was considered apart of the militia. If you owned a firearm you were apart of the militia. The term "militia" means a group of armed citizens. Today the liberals have turned the definition around to where it means the National Guard/Army. If I do rember my history correctly militias fought against a tyrannical government not became apart of it. It amazes me how many people don't realize this.
 
That's true. The US Code delineates between an organized (national guard) militia and an unorganized (We, the People) militia. They are BOTH militias. The founding fathers considered an organized militia to be nothing more than a standing army. And with the ongoing downsizing of the military, national guard and reserve units are playing a more "active" role, no pun intended. They truly are a standing army. George Mason: "Who are the militia? With the exception of a few public officers, it is the entire citizenry."
 
Like many people, I would like to see the Second Amendment finally interpreted by the Supreme Court as the individual right I believe it is.

But, a decision could as easily go the other way, which is why both the NRA and the anti-gun gang have hesitated to take this final step.

But even if the "right to keep and bear arms" is determined to be an individual right, gun laws would not be "wiped off the books." Each law, in each state, would have to be ruled on; each and every law would be in effect until/unless it was ruled void under the SC decision.

A ruling the other way would essentially be the status quo until the antis got enough votes to elect gun ban gangsters to office.

Since many of the most oppresive laws give lip service to the right of gun ownership, and recognizing that every right has some restrictions, I am not sure a decision on the Second Amendment would mean a lot.

Jim
 
Listen, guys, after having read the briefs of both sides in Emerson, I want to shout out a pre-emptive "Take Heart!" if Mr. Emerson should lose this first appeal to the Fifth Circuit, because that would not be the end of the road for this case. It is quite likely that the Fifth Circuit will reverse the trial judge's granting of the motion to dismiss the indictment, then remand for an actual hearing as to whether Mr. Emerson's pistol is reasonably useful to a military group, after which time the same trial judge will likely once again rule in Mr. Emerson's favor, and the gov't will once again appeal to the Fifth. It is at THAT time that the Fifth can make a better decision on the merits of the legal argument. If the Fifth rules in the defendant's (Emerson's) favor on this first appeal, so much the better. If not, he will still have a much better second shot, assuming he and his lawyers take the necessary steps to prove the usefulness of this type of weapon to a militia - if done, then of course, it's his individual right to keep (own) and bear(use) the weapon. I don't want any of you sensitive types to go over the top on this if it appears to be a defeat at first. The gov't actually has a strong argument that the defendant ought to at least be required to put on evidence of the nature of the weapon (based on case law, not a common sense reading of the second, of course), which I assume the defendant is ready to do. I hope and pray he has some financial backing for complete legal representation to the bitter end of this case, because one of the worst possible scenarios would be for him to settle (plea-bargain) on such a remand, just for the sake of repose, because it's such a great test case, with him having a Beretta and all, just like the MILITARY's M9.

[This message has been edited by Futo Inu (edited October 11, 1999).]
 
Futo-- I don't suppose the ILA would help this one...? It might be a bit touchy to get close to for the NRA. Heck, I'll cut a small check...
 
Per definition any able bodied person over the age of 17 IS part of the MILITIA.
Let the next antigunner know that. "Hey buddy, I AM THE MILITIA!" See what they say.
Then further let them know that as a member of the militia they need to be able to take up arms at a moments notice to go fight as needed. This means military grade rifles. This means EVIL BLACK RIFLES with NASTY BAYONET LUGS and horrible FLASH SUPPRESSORS and vomitous LONG CURVED MAGAZINES!

Juat like the regular troops. As in the colonial days the militai was to be outfitted with similar arms. A service rifle back then is the same as a service rifle today. Back then it was fine to have a musket. As the enemy had muskets too. Today the enmy has high capacity rapid fire arms. So does the service men who have to stand up to them. THAT MEANS MILITIA TOO. And THAT means any able bodied person over the age of 17.

------------------
I mean, if I went around saying I was an Emperor because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, people would put me away!
RAGE AGAINST THE MACHINE
 
Militia were by and large armed with rifles while the "regulars" were armed with smooth bore muskets & bayonets. So in acutallity the "private citizen" was often better armed than the regulars.
 
Long Path, I would write a check too. I'm going to have to leave this one in the hands of the experts, though. So I assume that if NRA or GOA agree with me that's it's an extremely important case, then they will hit us up specifically for $ donations for the appeals. We do know Mr. Emerson has SOME incentive to continue to appeal, since he was actually charged with a crime - in other words, it's not like he's just gonna be happy to be able to carry again once the divorce is over and the TRO is expired. So that's good (for us). I guess I'll actually read each dunning letter the NRA sends from now on, instead of placing directly in the circular file. This is one cause I would support if told my funds would be earmarked for the case.
 
I should have been more clear on Individual right, what was meant was the liberals consider the Milita only from the oraganized viewpoin (national guard), and do not admit readily to the unorganized, but more importantly they believe in a collective restriction not an individual right. This "collective" thought must come from the Global village mentality or too much star trek.

------------------
The beauty of the second Amendment is that it is not needed until they try to take it. T JEFFERSON
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top