Washington and the 2nd Amendment

The part that troubles me more than the aversion on the part of the legal community to support the Second Amendment is the unwillingness of our elected representatives to support it, as perceived public opinion blows them close to a lee shore. After all, the courts likely would not get involved if the legislators passed laws that conformed to (or, more correctly, did NOT pass laws that conflicted with) the Second. I have in my hand - well, it's in my lap as I type - a 1982 report from the Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution; the title is "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms." It is absolutely adamant that the Second Amendment protects RKBA. To quote the final sentence of the body of the report, "The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner." Even the ranking minority member, Dennis DeConcini, called the report an "excellent reference work." The members of the subcommittee who came up with this report included Senators Hatch, Grassley, Thurmond and Leahy. None of these Senators has a GOA rating above B-, according to the April 1999 listing (Thurmond scored a D). Where has that support for the Second Amendment gone? Hatch, Chairman of the Subcommittee, wrote in the opening sentence to the foreword for the report, "In my studies as an attorney and as a United States Senator, I have constantly been amazed by the indifference or even hostility shown the Second Amendment by courts, legislatures, and commentators." But where is Hatch today? Is he still "amazed" at the indifference by the legislature? Or is he part of the problem? You be the judge.

This report ought to be required reading for every member of Congress. (It's in the TFL library.)

You guys probably already were aware of this, but sometimes the most obvious questions remain in search of answers.

I'll shut up now.

------------------
Every nation has the government it deserves. - Joseph de Maistre

[This message has been edited by SAGewehr (edited June 20, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by SAGewehr (edited June 20, 2000).]
 
I was going to renege on my promise to shut up, but never mind... :o

[This message has been edited by SAGewehr (edited June 20, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by SAGewehr (edited June 20, 2000).]
 
Of course they know they are lying and fraudulant. They are oligarchs. They don't care.

The second amendment isn't that big a road block for them. They will sue the gunmakers out of existance, then make the sale of ammunition impossible as well. Ammunition isn't an "arm".

And don't expect the sheeple to suddenly wake up and tell our rulers to stop it. They think guns are scarry.
 
Shin-Tao,

I think you're right on the mark with the ammunition thing. That's the next big target. If ammunition and reloading components are banned, that's the end.


Horny Toad




------------------
NRA Life Member
SAF Member
GOA Member
 
Upcoming ammo bans will have no impact on criminals; but will hit the gun culture hard.

All of us here have varying levels of skill - but how many of us don't buy ammo by the crate of 1000 for the thousands of rounds of practice necessary to become a half decent shot (with speed).

Most who are ignorant of guns, even those who would not go for a gun ban, would surely think it "reasonable" that noone "needs" more than a hundred rounds of ammo, and that anyone with more is probably a criminal.


Battler.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Battler:
Most who are ignorant of guns, even those who would not go for a gun ban, would surely think it "reasonable" that noone "needs" more than a hundred rounds of ammo, and that anyone with more is probably a criminal.
[/quote]

Not just probably a criminal, but in their eyes and under the laws that they want to make, we will BE criminals.

Who's .sig is it on ths board that says, "When guns are outlawed, I will be an outlaw"?
 
I like that. "When guns are outlawed, I will be an outlaw"

As for the Emerson exchange above, it is pretty ignorant of the US atty. He didn't EVEN try to combine the two clauses of the 2nd Amend, but that is okay, it will probably back fire (I hope) based on the judge's reaction.

As for the National Guard: I thought it was created by Congress under it's athority in Article I sec 8 (militia clauses). Wonder why some think the 2nd Amendment protects an already enumerated power???!! And if the 2nd only protects the National Guard then I am reminded of a position held by Mason and Patrick Henery, who refused to sign the Constitution until it had a Bill of Rights -that the power to equip the militia that
resides in the feds necessarily implied the power to
'unequip' it as well. I seriously doubt the Framers set up such a senerio (sp?) with the 2nd Amendment.

Madison46

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dizzipator:
Not just probably a criminal, but in their eyes and under the laws that they want to make, we will BE criminals.

Who's .sig is it on ths board that says, "When guns are outlawed, I will be an outlaw"?

[/quote]
 
USC Title 10, Part I, Chapter 13:

Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

WHAT IS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND?????????? Apparently the federal prosecutor, Mateja, never bothered to read the US Code (incompetent), was to stupid to understand it (incompetent), or lied to the court (criminal).
 
[rant]

With all due respect, you can take the "militia clause" and "USC Title 10, Part I, Chapter 13" and use them to wrap fish.

I am a citizen of the United States. As such, I am soverign in some affairs and subordinate in others. The right to protect my life with the most efficient means possible is my soverign right. I do not need to become a member of a militia to exercise this right. Therefore, the right of the people, to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed and the enumerations of certain rights contained in the Bill of Rights shall not be construed as to limit others retained by the people.

Someday soon, Congress will get around repealing "USC Title 10, Part I, Chapter 13". And we'll be screwed even futher.

[/rant]

------------------
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

~USP

"... I rejoice that America has resisted [The Stamp Act]. Three millions of people, so dead to all feelings of liberty as to voluntarily submit to being slaves, would have been fit instruments to make slaves of the rest of us." -- William Pitt, British Parliament, December 1765
 
Madison46: in response to your implied question (As for the National Guard: I thought it was created by Congress under it's athority in Article I sec 8 (militia clauses).


The National Guard was created under Congress's power to raise STANDING ARMIES, according to that 1982 Senate subcommittee: "Congress has organized the National Guard under its power to 'raise and support armies' and not under its power to 'Provide for the organizing, arming and disciplining the Militia.'" "The modern National Guard was specifically intended to avoid status as the constitutional militia, a distinction recognized by 10 USC Sec. 311(a)."



------------------
Every nation has the government it deserves. - Joseph de Maistre
 
I have to agree. We cannot rely on the Code to define our right as they can change the code. The ultimate and true argument is the 2nd itself. It is an individual right.

To the others who replied about the organization of the National Guard - thanks - my education increase. I am better able to drive those arguing the anit-rights side into the ground.

Madison46

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by USP45:
[rant]

With all due respect, you can take the "militia clause" and "USC Title 10, Part I, Chapter 13" and use them to wrap fish.

I am a citizen of the United States. As such, I am soverign in some affairs and subordinate in others. The right to protect my life with the most efficient means possible is my soverign right. I do not need to become a member of a militia to exercise this right. Therefore, the right of the people, to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed and the enumerations of certain rights contained in the Bill of Rights shall not be construed as to limit others retained by the people.

Someday soon, Congress will get around repealing "USC Title 10, Part I, Chapter 13". And we'll be screwed even futher.

[/rant]

[/quote]
 
I use that sig regularly, but I think I swiped it from someone.

When guns are outlawed, I'll be an outlaw.

Wait a sec... I already am!
 
Welcome to you guys whose posts I haven't read before.

My observation is that pathological liars DON'T "know" that they are lying; they often believe their own lies. So it is with those in the government who would ignore the plain words "shall not be infringed."
 
I've never taken the US Code mentioned above as being the end all of validating my ownership of common defense weapons. Rather it merely adds some legal credence, in modern times and terms, as to who makes up the militia. We're either in the org. militia or the unorg. militia. I don't need the definition as the founders made it clear but for those who say, "Yea? Show me where it says I'm in the militia..." it's nice to be able to point to something tangible. I've used this in discussion with people and it gives them pause. It makes it easier to link the earliest foundation of the militia concept to current times.

It's not 'inalienable' but it helps as a supplement.

Chris..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top