Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Site Notices
6/21/2017 8:25:40 PM
Posted: 8/2/2001 10:08:21 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/2/2001 10:11:13 AM EDT by DonS]
[b]Here is an article in the The Christian Science Monitor:[/b] [url]http://www.csmonitor.com/durable/2001/08/02/p2s1.htm[/url] [b]Here is my reply to one of its points:[/b] Liz Marlantes states in her article: "the sole Supreme Court decision on the matter in 1939 . . . held that the amendment only guarantees the collective rights of states to keep militias". This is false. From UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) : "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. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158." The Supreme Court in this case is concerned with the nature of the weapon, not with Miller's standing (or lack thereof) in a state militia. If you have any doubts about this, you can review the Aymette decision cited by the Supremes: " The free white men may keep arms to protect the public liberty, to keep in awe those who are in power, and to maintain the supremacy of the laws and the constitution. . . . As the object for which the right to keep and bear arms is secured, is of general and public nature, to be exercised by the people in a body, for their common defence, so the arms, the right to keep which is secured, are such as are usually employed in civilized warfare, and that constitute the ordinary military equipment. If the citizens have these arms in their hands, they are prepared in the best possible manner to repel any encroachments upon their rights by those in authority. They need not, for such a purpose, the use of those weapons which are usually employed in private broils, and which are efficient only in the hands of the robber and the assassin.These weapons would be useless in war. They could not be employed advantageously in the common defence of the citizens. The right to keep and bear them, is not, therefore, secured by the constitution." And: "The citizens have the unqualified right to keep the weapon, it being of the character before described, as being intended by this provision. But the right to bear arms is not of that unqualified character." It is clear from Miller and Aymette that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to own arms, but that not all possible types of arms are protected, and not all means of carrying arms are protected. Miller: [url]http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=307&invol=174[/url] Aymette: [url]http://www.2ndLawLib.org/court/state/21tn154.html[/url]
Link Posted: 8/2/2001 10:10:41 AM EDT
[url]http://www.csmonitor.com/durable/2001/08/02/p2s1.htm[/url]
Link Posted: 8/2/2001 10:12:40 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/2/2001 10:24:11 AM EDT
Some won't be happy until Bush and Ashcroft are photograped nightly in a room filled with ammo cases, with M16's slung over their shoulders, wearing Rambo t-shirts and camoflauge. I, on the other hand, figure that ANYONE who pisses off the antis is a friend of mine, and will find more kind words to say about them, than negative words. I HOPE Bush and Ashcroft give us more freedom. I really do. But for today, its enuf that they are giving the antis an Alka Seltzer Day.
Link Posted: 8/2/2001 10:25:47 AM EDT
Good article, but the changes made so far by bush haven't been that drastic, but you have to start somewhere and this is good as any.
Link Posted: 8/2/2001 10:38:08 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/2/2001 10:40:28 AM EDT
Originally Posted By raf: Nice riposte. Hope they'll print it. Not gonna hold my breath, though.
View Quote
That's why I posted it here as well. At least someone will see it. I'm tired of these media types claiming that the Miller decision was that only state militias were protected. As far as Bush goes, he's been better than I expected, and I actually like him. I'm a (small L) libertarian, and I match Brown's beliefs much closer than Bush's. I voted Bush anyway.
Link Posted: 8/2/2001 4:00:30 PM EDT
Geo. Bush Jr. is my man. When the antis are whining about rescinding, diluting, hijacking etc. current gun control laws, I am truly in hog-heaven.
Link Posted: 8/2/2001 4:51:39 PM EDT
Originally Posted By garandman: Some won't be happy until Bush and Ashcroft are photograped nightly in a room filled with ammo cases, with M16's slung over their shoulders, wearing Rambo t-shirts and camoflauge.
View Quote
I probably won't be happy until "I" could do that in public without someone calling the cops. Maybe I played too much D&D in my youth. [:D] For now though, giving the anti's that "alka seltzer day", puts a little grin on my face.
Link Posted: 8/2/2001 5:06:06 PM EDT
Be careful of the phrase "state militia" it is a trick by the left--the 2nd says nothing about "state" militias. Check out keepandbeararms.com for a recent discussion about this.
Link Posted: 8/2/2001 5:27:44 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/2/2001 5:33:54 PM EDT by LARRYG]
Originally Posted By Stealth: I probably won't be happy until "I" could do that in public without someone calling the cops. Maybe I played too much D&D in my youth. [:D]
View Quote
There was a show one night on 'The Guns of Israel" where a woman said that over there people would stop and pick up a soldier walking down the road, and armed civilians, all the time, but she would not do the same thing here. What's the damn difference? I think the way they do it is great, but I think the 'I wouldn't do it in the US' sucks. Here is the e-mail I sent in response to this article:
Ms. Marlantes, I just read your online article for Christian Science Monitor about Bush loosening restrictions on guns. All he is really doing is stopping the treatment of law abiding citizens as criminals and also bringing to a halt the coddling of criminals. Both these things were done by the Clinton administration. I loved this part, stated by Brendan Daly: "He (Mr. Daly) defends the gun-buyback program, saying there's evidence that law-enforcement groups found it effective. And he says gun-purchase records need to be held for 90 days so that the FBI can audit them to enforce proper background checks." As for the contention that gun-buyback programs work, it is an outright lie of the kind that Mr. Daly's group is famous for and has admitted, saying that anything is okay to achieve their goal. Anyone with any amount of logic can see where these programs achieve absolutely nothing and are nothing but 'feel good' politics by gun control advocates. I want to say gun control fanatics or nuts, which is the way people like Mr. Daly always categorize law abiding gun owners, but I will not stoop to their level. It is ironic that the alleged intellectual side of the argument, the gun control advocates, are the ones that most often resort to infantile name calling. Seriously, read articles, editorials, and letters to various editors and notice the difference in tone. Additionally, those who support the Second Amendment usually have documented and verifiable facts, whereas groups like VPC just make up hysterical 'facts' to further their argument. As for the 90 day issue, if someone comes up clean on the background check, why keep the record for 90 days. The argument 'to guard against fraud' doesn't wash. If their is fraud, it is in the FBI's own criminal records and they should do a better housekeeping job. This is just to try to establish a registry of guns. I have been told by gun control advocates that they hold law abiding gun owners {nuts or fanatics they call us) in more contempt than they do convicted murderers and rapists, and they would rather see us in jail than real criminals. That is some twisted thinking, not conducive to reducing crime.
View Quote
I actually had an anti-gunner say those things about real criminals vs. us.
Originally posted by DonS: 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. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158."
View Quote
I loved this. The Supremes seem to be saying that we have the right to have the same weaponry as the military.
Top Top