FYI:

Mr. Newman is an attorney for the MMM. This gentleman has been kind enough to share his thoughts on what he believes the Second Amendment stands for. I have already shared my views with him.

Now its your turn.

If you are so inclined, you can contact Attorney Newman at [email protected] to share your views on what YOU think the 2nd stands for.

I know he would love to hear from you...& all your friends. He seems to be an open minded fellow willing to hear other viewpoints.

Subject:
re: Second Amendment
From:
[email protected]
Date:
Wed, 16 May 2001 22:25:00 EDT
To:
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

May 16, 2001

Gentlemen:

This all began when you challenged Dr. Whitefield to a Second Amendment
debate. I learned of this challenge and in my last correspondence with Mr.
Williamson of May 15, 2001, refuted the contention that the Supreme Court has
not issued a definitive ruling on the right to bear arms.

As reported in Lewis v. U.S., 445 U.S. 55, the Supreme Court repeated is
holding in U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, by stating as follows:

[T]he Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm
that
does not have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or
efficiency
of a well regulated milita.

I have practice law for nearly 30 years. This is a definitive legal
statement by the Supreme Court, whether you like it or not.

I then challenged Mr. Williamson to produce a single Supreme Court decision
containing lanquage guaranteeing individuals the right to bear arms. I
agreed to debate if he could. You have sent me more than a dozen pages of
materials without producing a single Supreme Court decision granting
individuals the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment.

Guys, you are grasping as straws. The battle is over and you have lost.
Unless and until the Supreme Court overrules Miller, you are without Supreme
Court authority giving individuals the right to bear arms. Sorry, but that
is the law of the land and you must live with it.

Burt Newman


"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule."
H.L. Mencken

[T]he Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm
that
does not have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or
efficiency
of a well regulated milita.





That quote means that we have a right to keep and bear M16s.

I think the semi auto rifles are neccesary to arm a well regulated miltia.

No problem,  WE [b]are[/b] the militia.

He took that statement out of context. What the court was saying is that posession of a shotgun with a barrel of less than 18 inches would not be protected under the 2nd because it serves little or no military function.

One also need note that the defendant did not present any arguments before the court, so he did not have a chance to prove that the short barreled shotgun was, in fact, employed by the military at various times in our history, something that the prosecution would obviously not do.

Taking their wording one step farther one would have to conclude that a full auto M16 or other assault weapon would be protected because of it's obvious military value. This guy is a liar, I mean lawyer all right. He knows how to mince words with the best of them.

[T]he Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm
that
does not have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or
efficiency
of a well regulated milita.





That kind of flies in the face of an "assault weapons ban" or a "high cap mag ban", now doesn't it.

Ron

"They that sacrifice liberty to obtain temporary security deserve neither and will most assuredly lose both."
-Thomas Jefferson

"Moderation in temperament is always a VIRTUE,
Moderation in primciple is always a VICE."
-Thomas Paine

If it is admitted as true that:

"the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"

this does not negate the assertion that:

"the Second Amendment guarantees a right to keep and bear a firearm that has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"

If Mr. Newman isn't up on elementary logic, why bother trying to educate him? Let him make an ass of himself in court...

Wouldn't that be a joke.  Take away those scattergunner's Over/Unders and let us buy and sell unregistered M16s and M60s.

Here's a link to the full ruling:

[url]http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.comXXXXs/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=307&invol=174[/url]

Here's the actual quote:

[i]"Unless and until the Supreme Court overrules Miller, you are without Supreme
Court authority giving individuals the right to bear arms. "[/i]

I'm sorry, but I don't need the Supreme Court to grant me authority to do a single damned thing.  [i]The Constitution[/i] does so already, and unless the constitutionality of the Bill of Rights is being challenged, the Supremes can go jerk off in a sock. [-!-!-]

U.S. Constitution: Second Amendment
Second Amendment - Bearing Arms

http://www.ccrkba.org/legal-issues.html

Amendment Text | Annotations
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.



Annotations
In spite of extensive recent discussion and much legislative action with respect to regulation of the purchase, possession, and transportation of firearms, as well as proposals to substantially curtail ownership of firearms, there is no definitive resolution by the courts of just what right the Second Amendment protects. The opposing theories, perhaps oversimplified, are an ''individual rights'' thesis whereby individuals are protected in ownership, possession, and transportation, and a ''states' rights'' thesis whereby it is said the purpose of the clause is to protect the States in their authority to maintain formal, organized militia units.1 Whatever the Amendment may mean, it is a bar only to federal action, not extending to state2 or private3 restraints. The Supreme Court has given effect to the dependent clause of the Amendment in the only case in which it has tested a congressional enactment against the constitutional prohibition, seeming to affirm individual protection but only in the context of the maintenance of a militia or other such public force.


In United States v. Miller,4 the Court sustained a statute requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawed-off shotguns. After reciting the original provisions of the Constitution dealing with the militia, the Court observed that ''[w]ith 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 with that end in view.''5 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.''6 Therefore, ''[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 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.''7

Right on LuvmyAR, jerk off in a sock, LMAO.

wank wank wank......................

FEAFEFH

Ronnie,

Your Jefferson quote is inaccurate,  Ben Franklin said something [u]like[/u] that.

Not breaking your balls.....V

I emailed Mr. Newman a few minutes ago, and here's what I had to say.  If I forgot something or complete came across an oversight in my argument, please let me know and/or email him yourself with your own information:

[b]Hello Mr. Newman.  I would first like to state that I admire your open-mindedness in this issue, a trait rarely seen in any individual, in the political, legal, or any sphere.  Thanks for taking time to read my personal "opinion" on this issue; I will call it opinion because I am an engineering major, not a law student, and have no legal bearing to justify my rationale.

I consider myself a libertarian, as I am split down the right/left-wing line on about every political issue known to man!  I am also a gun owner of about 4 months, so I would like to believe I have a logical, firm viewpoint in the "great debate" of gun ownership and the aspect of the militia.

It is unfortunate the the Founding Fathers of our nation did not use more convenient wording in their phrase "..a well regulated militia" found in Article II of the Bill of Rights.  If they had meant this to stand for an organized national army, a state conglomerate of militiamen, or the private citizen his/herself, we will honestly never know.  If this refers to the private owner or even a state militia, then the issue of "who the 2nd amendment precisely applies to" would be clear as a crystal.  I unfortuntately cannot make that assumption, in the fairness of law, despite my own beliefs that the individual firearm-owner is the object of this Right.  "The right of the people ... shall not be infringed".  It is through this perception that I feel that individual citizens are intended to be the gun owners of this nation, in the ultimate intent of providing "a well regulated militia".

While the militia is viewed in many of our eyes as the U.S. Army, National Guard, etc. the "militia" was never referred to, or intended to be the Army or Nat. Guard.  In fact, the National Guard wasn't created until the late 19th or early 20th century I believe (please correct me if I am wrong).  The Army, however, was/is/will be a federally controlled entity, and I find it humorous to surely believe that "the people" refers to the government in any form or fashion.  The Constitution (again, not a man of law, thus I apologize that I cannot supply the exact clause) rightfully declares a distinction between the "[unorganized] militia" and the Army.

As for the Supreme Court not declaring individuals legally inclined to own firearms, in my humble opinion alone, I do not think "the people" stated in the God-given 2nd Article Right, given to U.S. citizens, should have ever become an issue for judicial speculation over who the intended recipients of the Rights were.  Ex Post Facto, it has happened, and we are all under the cloud that it has created for private gun owners like myself.  It is most unfortunate that we cannot fight the courts without using former decisions by the Supreme Court, as many of us have had no need to resort to judicial decisions to protect a law that has been stable for over 200 years.  Nonetheless, I believe all gun owners, for the sake of the safety of their families, friends, and themselves, will fight this issue with extreme integrity and diligence - for many non-law abiding citizens will not be affected by this "decision" and will proceed to use firearms, especially under the circumstances of an unarmed population.

Again, thank for your listening to my thoughts on this important topic.  I hope that members for both sides of this issue will ultimately step up with proper documentation, and a final verdict will be reached.

-Chris Little[/b]

How is it that the liberals can so openly take info out of context and still keep a straight face?

Hey,

Anyone that thinks US v Lewis justifies the confiscation or restriction of firearms, is either an idiot, or doesn't know jack about the law or both.

Lewis was a convicted felon (breaking & entering), who traveled out of state and bought a shotgun, which he then sawed-off. When he was stopped and searched later (with probable cause), he contended that the court had no right to restrict his firearm possession because he was guaranteed that right under the 2nd Ammend. He was as big of an idiot as whoever thinks this ruling denies RTKBA. The court said, in a nutshell, their position is:

"So, under Title VII, every citizen could possess a gun [445 U.S. 55, 63]   until the commission of his first felony. Upon his conviction, however, Title VII would deny every assassin, murderer, thief and burglar of the right to possess a firearm in the future except where he has been pardoned by the President or a State Governor and had been expressedly authorized by his pardon to possess a firearm." 114 Cong. Rec. 14773 (1968).


The ruling was that FELONS are not members of the "milita", and therefore are not afforded the right to bear arms. True, the type of firearm did bear weight on the case in court, had it been a hunting rifle that Lewis was using to shoot a deer, the court may have not been as restrictive.

So, unless you're a felon, keep shooting.

SAMHAIN44

P.S. - Here's the whole case if anyone wants to read it [url]http://caselaw.findlaw.comXXXXs/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=445&page=55[/url]

Here's a little more info with which to hit that crooked MMM lawyer over the head!



http://www.ccrkba.org/2ndAmendSupremeCourtTable.html


SUPREME COURT CASES ON
SECOND AMENDMENT/
RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS

1998: MUSCARELLO v. UNITED STATES - In the dissent on defining "carries a firearm", several Justices note that "Surely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution's Second Amendment ("keep and bear Arms"). . . ."

1998: SPENCER v. KEMNA - In his dissent, Justice Stevens noted that a conviction "may result in tangible harms such as imprisonment, loss of the right to vote or to bear arms. . . ."

1997: PRINTZ, SHERIFF/CORONER, RAVALLI COUNTY, MONTANA v. UNITED STATES - Brady Background Check overturned as unfunded mandate in violation of Tenth Amendment. Justice Thomas requests a Second Amendment case.

1995: U.S. v. LOPEZ - Gun-Free School Zones Overturned as Congress exceeded its powers.

1994: ALBRIGHT v. OLIVER - The court quoted POE v. ULLMAN on how the right to keep and bear arms and other rights are to have, "freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints" under the Fourteenth Amendment.

1992: PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PA. v. CASEY - The court quoted POE v. ULLMAN on how the right to keep and bear arms and other rights are to have, "freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints" under the Fourteenth Amendment.

1990: PERPICH v. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE - National Guard is NOT the militia but part of Armed Forces. Militia divided into "organized" and "unorganized".

1990: UNITED STATES v. VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ - The "people" under the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth & Tenth Amendments are individuals, not the States.

--- Much more at:

http://www.ccrkba.org/2ndAmendSupremeCourtTable.html

Btt.

1990: UNITED STATES v. VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ - The "people" under the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth & Tenth Amendments are individuals, not the States.


This one alone should be evident that people have the right to have firearms.  

It's not rocket science.

You hit the nail on the head.  The MMM lawyer's position is solely dependent on what a 'Militia' is.  Now what US v. Miller did do well is define the historical definition of what the 'Militia' is - everyone.  That is why they are pushing the changing of the definition of 'Militia' to National Guard.

Furthermore it must be noted that ALL FIREARMS have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or
efficiency
of a well regulated milita.  That was an assumption that the SC was unwilling to make at the time they wrote their decision.

Seems to me that "The People" refered to in the first ammendment are the same "The People" in all constitutional documents...Free Speech is hardly the preserve of newspapers or federal agencies that have state approval to the right to free speech
Free Speech is an individuals rights...as is the right to persue happiness...right to be safe in our persons and posessions...etc...these are all references to the "individual" having personal rights not the state to dictate who has rights and under what federal guidelines imo

Matrix,

Check out this excellent article, which you can forward to Mr. Newman:

The Supreme Court’s Thirty-five Other Gun Cases:
What the Supreme Court Has Said about
the Second Amendment
- by David Kopel
[url]www.i2i.org/SuptDocs/Crime/35.htm[/url]

Thanks.  I have forwarded that article by David Kopel to Mr. Newman.  

To any interested in doing so, let Mr. Newman & the MMM know how you feel about what they are trying to do to your RKBA.

If more of the firearm owning population would speak out it would drown out their anti-freedom rhetoric as it pertains to the RKBA.


You can reach him at [email protected]


"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule."
H.L. Mencken

"I have not yet begun to fight!" -
John Paul Jones

I couldn't resist.  I had to right him.




Take that! [-!-!-]

good post BTT

We don't have to live with shit - we have the firearms we need to make it the way we want, if we ever decide it's time to do that.

I personally would like the anti-gunners to respect my RKBA even if they don't agree with it, but I'll settle for having them FEAR me because I own guns.

I have the right to defend my life. Since a threat to my life could quite possibly come from an armed agressor, does it not stand to reason that I should also be armed? The movement to make RKBA a "right" only for the military or some other priveledged group is doing nothing more than ensuring that none of us have the right (read that as ability) to defend ourselves or loved ones from agressors. The elimination or dilution of the second ammendment will remove the underpining of our society as a whole and leave us at the mercy of armed agressors either from WITHIN or WITHOUT.

Had to get that one off my chest. Thanks

If the 2nd Amendment had been interpreted by the liberals over the years as like they've interpreted the 1st and 4th Amendments, we'd all be carrying machine guns, hand grenades and rocket launchers.

TT

I don't care what kind of legal mumbo jumbo and half truths can be thrown our way. I don't care what kind of klinton logic they can come up with.

The first 10 amendmends are individual rights. That was the whole idea of putting them as the bill of rights. Everyone of thoses rights are applied and directed to the people. Who are the people? We are the people? We the people! Even if they take away every right in the constitution I will know in my heart that the founders loved God and wanted a country for the people by the people and of the people. Who recognized that God gave us certain rights.

Next they will tell us there is no God!!! Oh I forgot they tell our kids that in school sorry.

Remember one thing the reason why this is taking place is because they keep on trying to figure out what the document says instead of taking it for face value. It is not going to stop. They are going to redefine the constitution not abolish it!! That is the way of the world. They are doing the same thing with the bible. Amazing how the 2 documents that have so much truth and meaning are the ones tampered with. I guess they just don't like what they both say.

Yes, that's all well and good.  I agree with you 110%.  The first 10 are individual rights, but they are no longer being respected as that.

We can say "I don't care; I'd like to see them try and get my guns".  Or I don't care, it's and individual right.  If these rights are no longer supported by our government or our LEOs, then we are screwed in the long run.  On top of that, don't even get me started on the UN situation.

Who the hell is the Supreme Court that they think they can regulate a right?!?  The 2nd does NOT say "...the [i]privilege[/i] to keep and bear arms [i]might[/i] be infringed."  

BTW   "Those who give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."  Benjamin Franklin - 1769

SOL

The guy is a dick.

In 1939 Miller (as in Miller v. US) presented no arguements since he was not present. No defense counsel was present either.

The govt atty argued that the sawed-off shotgun had no "militia" purpose but intentionally or ignorantly "forgot" to mention that the NFA also included taxation and registration of machine guns. A device that has "militia value" if any small arms device does.

D.

If I can butt in here. Actually I believe that the Constitution does not GRANT any rights. Rights as understood by the founders cannot be granted, they exist on their own as part of every human's birthright. The guy in China born into a shit-hole village is born with the innate right to keep and bear arms, along with all other human rights. It's just that his government has decided to infringe on that right.

The Constitution AFFIRMS these rights, and places restrictions on the government -- telling it what it CANNOT do.

Therefore, our rights, including the RKBA, are born with us and are as much a basic right as freedom of religion and conscience...granted as it were by the Creator and non-negotiable.

Of course we see what they are trying with all the other rights as well. I for one will die before I live in the world they have planned for me. [-!-!-]

AK2KX...well said!  I am a patriot in the sense of Lexington and Concord and believe  there is no alternative to freedom. The  that has been shed for us will not be forgotten. Our rights come only from God....and as I have said before "Why would I go to Vietnam to fight for another man's rights and not do the same here?"  The corrupt, anti-Constitution, New World Order Feds can go to Hell. They disgrace every grave marker on the grave of every man who ever fought for freedom.  They will sow the wind and they will reap the WHIRLWIND.
My oath to defend the Constitution is a witnessed official US Military document and it hangs on my wall.  

Call yourself a lawyer do ya MMM ass-kisser? Well, US v. Miller is not a definitive ruling, neither is Lewis. The issue of an individual RKBA has never been squarely presented to the Supremes. I an cautiously optomistic that if it comes up during soon-to-be Chief Justice Scalia's tenure, the issue will be laid to rest. Aside from that fact that the 2nd Amendment is clear and needs no interpretation, except for needle dick bug fuckers like yourself,there is no issue. Meantime, go back and clean up the million tampons from the million moms. Enjoy. Wrap them in a million tortillas and have some MMM Burritos.  ES & D!

One more point. Where, in the B of R or the body of the Constitution, does it grant the "interpretation" of the Bill of Rights authority to the Supreme Court?

Answer: IT DOESNT!

Oliver Wendall Holmes, while Chief Justice, "granted" the US SupCt this dubious "authority". It does not actually exist.

D.

The annoying thing is that in many ways even the second amendment is irrelevant.

  Wait, Don't Shoot Me Yet!


  The second is irellevant because, even if it didn't exist, there's still the ninth and tenth amendments.



  And since nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government granted the power to regulate firearms, it doesn't have the right so to do -- and the right to keep and bear firearms is, therefore, retained by the people. We don't need a second amendment to have the RKBA -- we don't even need a Constitution, for that matter. Even the Bill of Rights only acknowledges, it does not grant.

--------------------------------------------
[url]http://www.anotherpundit.com[/url]

I always like how this scum convienently leaves out the definition of what a militia is, in the context of the constitution.  With that little bit of knowledge, then what his (mis)quote says is that an individuals right to own a weapon of military value is protected by the 2nd.  The only guns which are not protected are those used for sport, the reverse of those guns affected by the current bans.  Repeal the assault weapons bills, the high capacity regulations, and you can regulate my guide gun all you want.

Of course he obviously thought adding the fact that he has been an attorney for over 30 years should give his opinion some value.

Also it is suspect that he did not mention any of the "articles" presented to him that did not constitute proof that the supreme court has upheld rkba.  He may have just ruled things out arbitrarily and then backed up that decision with the fact that he has been an attorney for 30 years+ and since we have not, we are not qualified to argue with his decision.  Convenient.

Makes me sick.