Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 5/29/2001 12:16:29 PM EDT
***II. 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. ***The militia has historically consisted of all able bodied men, but would now include women. ***The “assault gun” ban is based on the assertion that the firearms are militaristic in nature. ***The NRA Highpower service rifle competitions provide a means for civilians to learn and demonstrate marksmanship with military type weapons. ***The argument that the liberals have offered is that weapons that have a military based configuration should be banned since they serve no purpose for hunting and are dangerous. *** *** *** *** -It follows that there could be a very good argument that rifles such as the AR-15, M1A and M1 Garand are protected by the second amendment. If the United States’ security were threatened, the citizens that have been trained on civilian versions of the military weapons would be better able to defend the Free State. This is not to say that all militaristic weapons (SKS, FAL, AK) would be protected, just that they would not be constitutionally protected. -This is not to say that everybody should have access to fully automatic weapons, or heavy artillery. The semi-automatic versions would provide training (well regulated) and a pool of talent for the military to draw on. Let the liberals define the militia however they want. The National Guard, the Army or it reserves, or the Marines (no offense to the AF or Navy). If a threat comes, we are all eligible to be drafted. -Membership in the NRA and either membership in a gun club, or participation in a service rifle match would enable any citizen to own a US military derived rifle. I would even accept the Service Rifle rules about appearance. -You could even let the Federal Assault weapons ban stand and just go after the multitude of state laws based on mag capacity and appearance. A well regulated militia (Adult citizens, with out criminal records, trained in the use of military type arms)… being necessary to the security of a free state (not much ambiguity there)… the right of the people (the people, not the state) to keep and bear arms (own and train with) , shall not be infringed. So let’s pick a venue with some conservative judges, make the argument, and roll back these bans on the ARs, and M1s. I think that you could file the case anywhere with the argument that you want to sell/move a banned weapon to a state with a law in place. Interstate trade seems to be used for everything socialistic, so let’s use it for our side for once. File it against some small municipality or state that doesn’t have the resources or will to fight it. Take that victory and start to challenge the other laws. Better yet try to pass it as Federal law under the name “Civil Rights Act of 2001.” As a meat eating, chemical industry working, SUV driving, gun owner, white male, I want the courts to work for me just once. Any comments? FMCDH
Link Posted: 5/29/2001 4:14:04 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/29/2001 4:56:25 PM EDT
i like your arguments, FromMyColdDeadHand, (and the name!) and i would like to subscribe to your newsletter! [:)] i also agree with troy when he says that the supreme court won't be dealing with the issue soon. BUT if it ever does, consider this point - with the disclaimer that i do NOT believe that ANYBODY with a trigger finger applies!! the framers were drawing from the experiences and the weaponry around them at the time. they were also looking into the future - the future of government, the future of world events AND the weaponry of the future. instead of reading too much into what they included in the 2nd, lets look at what they LEFT OUT. they did NOT state that the 2nd applies to "hunting and sporing" arms. remember, at the time, the best weapons were owned by the military. the SAME weapons could be found in most homes. they never said in the 2nd that when military arms exceed the potency or accuracy of civilian arms, then a new rule applies! think about that next time you look at kalifonia and hang your head in grief!! ...and again, folks, i AM NOT saying that my sketchy neighbors should own m16s and LAW rockets!
Link Posted: 5/30/2001 6:01:43 AM EDT
Thanks guys for your input. What I tried to put into my position is that this would not be blanket OK for all guns or for all people. You can't yell fire in a crowded hall. I believe in a rights/responsibility kind of world. I just thought it would be fun to turn the military tag put on these rifles by the left as a way to keep them legal. I love figuratively impaling people on their own arguments. Troy- I understand that the Supreme Court makes final decisions on constitutionality, but when you would take a case to Federal Court (FromMyColdDeadHand v. State of California), wouldn't you argue there that the law is unconstitutional? I would hope that you wouldn't have to be found guilty of the law before you could question the constitutionality of the law. I am rather fragile and I wouldn't look forward to prison. Everyone has their limits. FattyM4- I don't have a newsletter, I just constrain myself to screaming at the network news programs on TV.
Link Posted: 5/30/2001 6:11:57 AM EDT
FattyM4- I don't have a newsletter, I just constrain myself to screaming at the network news programs on TV.
View Quote
You too? I think it's genetic- my dad had made it an art form.
Link Posted: 5/30/2001 9:07:41 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Steve in VA:
FattyM4- I don't have a newsletter, I just constrain myself to screaming at the network news programs on TV.
View Quote
You too? I think it's genetic- my dad had made it an art form.
View Quote
here i thought i was the only one!!!
Link Posted: 5/30/2001 1:53:32 PM EDT
Why do we need an argument to keep them legal? We should be hearing explainations on why we are being denied M16s and FA M14s, since we have a fundamental human right to own and use those weapons, not arguing why we should be able to keep neutered versions of those weapons. Kharn
Link Posted: 5/30/2001 3:08:27 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Kharn: Why do we need an argument to keep them legal? We should be hearing explainations on why we are being denied M16s and FA M14s, since we have a fundamental human right to own and use those weapons, not arguing why we should be able to keep neutered versions of those weapons. Kharn
View Quote
you're right...but i won't argue for my sketchy neighbors, they don't apply. [(:|)] now, when you say legal, do you mean REALLY legal, ei: No outragous tax, No unconstitutional up-my-"---"-with-a-microscope background checks? or do you mean legal like in PA, but everywhere???
Link Posted: 5/30/2001 6:10:04 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/30/2001 8:13:05 PM EDT
Why have this argument with the other members of the choir? Why not run your points by a board supported by HCI or the VPC? Post it there, see what the replies are and then post a link or synopsis here. I think they will first deny the 2nd Admendment is an individual right and go from there.
Link Posted: 5/30/2001 8:13:38 PM EDT
The argument here is "who is the militia". If we read the second admendment as intended there should be two rights... 1) to have a well-regulated Militia (citizen or Govn't) 2) For the people to keep and bear arms [sniper][uzi] So... There should be no constitutional reason why we can't own anything, barring past criminal history and insanity -Chuck
Link Posted: 5/30/2001 8:50:57 PM EDT
"And by the way, Mr. Speaker, The Second Amendment is not for killing ducks and leaving Huey and Dewey and Louie without an aunt and uncle. It is for hunting politicians like (in) Grozney and in 1776, when they take your independence away". Robert K. Dornen, U.S. Congressman. 1995 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. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html
Link Posted: 5/31/2001 3:30:32 AM EDT
What Troy said. Ricco, Great quote.
Link Posted: 5/31/2001 8:55:11 AM EDT
"It was not intended to allow crew-served weapons..." Did not the militias of that time period possess and use artillery? Also, were not the "arms seizures" attempted by the British aimed primarily at cconfiscating said artillery along with the powder and shot for it?
Link Posted: 5/31/2001 6:34:50 PM EDT
Thanks for everyones input. What I was trying to do is make an arguement that could actually stand a realistic chance in court. -The reason I limited it to the ARs and M1s is that it could pass the Miller test of being weapons useful to a militia. -The part of belonging to a gun club or competitively shooting the rifle would satisfy the "well regulated" i.e. trained militia. It seems to me that conservatives in general are unwilling to accept limited victories because we see them also as limited defeats. From Sun Tzu to the Gulf War, you fight the battles you can win. Martyrdom, with out results, is not just over-rated, it's rather selfish. Let me put it this way. When you met your wife for the first time, did you ask her to marry you? (Excluding if she was at the range and helped you pick up your brass. That is the only time I would understand this approach.) There are alot of things that the government does that I think are unconstitutional or at least stretch the interstate commerce clause more than Roseanne Barr in lycra, but that doesn't mean I'm going to stop paying my taxes. I am sad to say that I'm not sure when we can get everyone's crew served weapons back. But we have to start somewhere. FMCDH
Link Posted: 6/1/2001 2:58:04 PM EDT
The basis for an argument is already working it's way through the courts in Emerson versus US. This is whether the 2nd amendment is an individual right or a collective right. I have a feeling there are two likely outcomes: 1- It goes to SCOTUS which rules that it is an individual right and thus 94 crime bill, SB23, and all other stuff becomes voided law. 2- DOJ with agreement with gun control groups drops the appeal. I hear that this will be the most likely scenario as the gun control groups are favoring this approach as they don't want to risk losing in SCOTUS as this would be a big loss.
Link Posted: 6/1/2001 11:13:11 PM EDT
Stator, thanks for the update. Have you been finding updates on the nraila.org site, or somewhere else? Even if the idea of individual rights is affirmed, what would it do? I have a hard time thinking that you could get a 5-4 out of the SCOTUS allowing the production of new machineguns. Just real world considerations. Sometimes I think the anti's don't want the gun control laws to work, so they can get to their logical end point of no guns at all. The way I have read Emerson is that it is more of a due process with the second thrown in. (Man arrested for possessing a gun when he had a restraining order on him. The restraining order was placed by a judge with out a hearing. Is that it in a nut shell?) Is neither side willing to take on the RKBA issue head on. Man once SCOTUS rules definatively, it is over until you pass another Amendment. (Well, just because the constitution doesn't mention a right, doesn't mean it doesn't exist or that it is illegal.)
Link Posted: 6/2/2001 5:39:14 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/2/2001 5:37:43 AM EDT by stator]
The law that Dr Emerson was charged with violating is based upon the intrepretation that the 2nd amendment is a collective right not an individual right. The judge ruled the opposite which was the constitution says it's an individual right and therefore the law was unconstitutional. There are other peripherial issues in the judges ruling as well (another amendment right was violated). These, however, are minor. The DOJ's attorney has appealed but must prove the 2nd amendment is not an individual right. It is in the fifth circuit court... one step away from SCOTUS. I believe that Emerson will be that defining case if it gets to SCOTUS. If SOCTUS rules the 2nd is an individual right, then all of the gun control laws that are based upon it being a collective right are invalid. This is almost all gun control laws passed in the 90s. I predict that the only ones that will survive will be trigger locks and other such safety laws. The big question is the liberal anti-gun establishment. They are trying to workout an agreement with the Bush administration to have the DOJ drop the case. They are promising not to cause difficulties for Bush in return. Their thinking is that it is better to let the Emerson ruling fester in a lower court ruling and wait for better timing from their perspective. In essence, Gore losing changed the momentum from themselves to Emerson.
Link Posted: 6/7/2001 6:47:52 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/7/2001 6:46:34 PM EDT by PowderBurns]
You can't argue the "intentions" of the framers. That's what we call in literary critical theory "intentional fallacy." Best proof that intentions cannot be conveyed in text is the arguments of some Freshman college writers. "Militia" is a somewhat archaic term. It was used in the Bill of Rights before the invention of police for law enforcement. It might easily be argued that a "militia" constitutes ANY govt. directed "police" entity . . . FBI, CIA, DEA, INS, state, city police, and of course the military. The concept of a "well regulated" militia MIGHT mean a militia that is organized and equiped. BUT, it might also mean a "militia" or govt. police agency that is "regulated" or controlled by the PEOPLE. Madison, Jefferson suggest this. Federalist Papers discusses this notion at length. "ARMS" can consiste of ALL arms. Certainly a revolutionary era cannon would be considered an "arm" and probably not restricted from civilian ownership. Machine guns were readily available through mail-order until the Nat'l Firearms Act of 1939. Supreme Court gets to decide which cases it will hear. The Court has been historically silent on issues of the Second Amendment. Take a look at the Second Amendment Law Library: [url]http://www.2ndlawlib.org/[/url]
Link Posted: 6/7/2001 7:55:31 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/8/2001 5:49:02 AM EDT by fattym4]
hey PowderBurns, you make some VERY interesting points, they got me thinking! this post may interest you - its got some local codes about militias - note the sections regarding "organized" militias, under the governor as well as "unorganized" militias. [url]http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?id=28424#lastPost[/url] pretty interesting stuff!
Link Posted: 6/8/2001 4:56:25 AM EDT
Powderburns, Thanks for the input. I just had a few questions. How can you say you can't argue the intentions of the founders and then quote Federalist papers? I was just reading them yesterday (Yeah, I keep a copy in my car for lunch time reading.) I thought that I read that the militia was defined as able bodied men able to bear arms. Also I thought that the militia officers would be elected, not government employees. I have to take strong exception to the FBI,CIA or other FEDERAL law enforcement agency being considered Militia. Militia's defiantley were a check on a standing army and Federal power. I think you are mistaken. Are you also saying that there were no police before 1800? I do agree about the SCOTUS being silent on the Second. It seems like in most of the cases sighted by both sides the Second is not the main point. Even when they do rule like in Miller, the ruling is fairly narrow.
Top Top