And legalese, to avoid being seen as fighting when all I want to do is to use strong inflammatory language to MAKE you understand...let me give you a homework assignment...
[url]http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~volokh/beararms/testimon.htm[/url]

And in reply to your last post.....more guns = more freedom.....if the peeps is armed maybe the feds will think differently and stop the madness......which is an interesting paraphrase of the second amendment.

Hound: I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm not a gun grabber (at least not in the sense you use it) though I do like my guns. Sorry for not quoting, I will quote viciously and extensively in the future. At no point do I suggest greater laws or greater restrictions. Your small mind is apparently unable to fathom, much less understand that other people may interpret words differently. Just because I understand why other people may argue what they do, doesn't make them right. However, unless you understand the other side's argument, you cannot counter it and you will be beaten to death with it.

As to the other person who apparently assumed I was quoting when I referred to the "right of the militia" which of course was not a quote, how else would you read that sentence? Oh you mean the drafters who carefully separated different parts of the document into articles they just got lazy when they drafted the second amendment and decided to lump in the (let me get this straight now) some right to both have militias and a separate right of people (anyone) to bear arms? I, nor any other person studying the subject has ever heard of a "right of militias." The sentence is not drafted in modern english (duh) and the language is a single (that's one) sentence and the words are meant to be read together (that means you can't insert a period where you feel like it)

I don't undestand what value the testimony of this individual is. The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the meaning of the Constitution. The Constitution is a living document, meaning that it is always changing as the interpretations change as the composition of the court changes and as the issues before the court change. Right or wrong, love it or hate it, that's an irrefutable fact. I really don't care what the opinion of any individual is and neither does the Supreme Court. In fact, the Congress could pass a law that says Arms means every weapon including slingshots...every state could pass that law too..but guess what, it's totally without jurisprudential value unless the Supreme Court of the United States validates it. My point, and my only point was that these things are subject to judicial interpretation. Anyone that feels, thinks, or believes otherwise is dead wrong and I have no further interest in carrying on discussion with such a person because it would be futile because such a person obviously fails to grasp one of the most basic tenets of our legal and political system. I wasn't ENDORSING gun bans or anything of the sort. I was merely trying to be helpful. I'm not much of a typist however so anyone that wants to discuss this further can call me to save time...bring it on

Erm, no I didnt think you were quoting.

I was disagreeing with your interpretation of the 2nd.

The 2nd is NOT about a right of the militia, the Militia has NO rights.  It even isnt about a 'right to have a militia'.  It plainly says that 'A well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State.'  Nope no 'right' to have a militia.

The PEOPLE have the right.  The same as every other instance of 'The People' in the Constitution.

And here is YOUR exact phrase [b]"As you may know, the amendment refers to the right of a well regulated militia to keep and bear arms." [/b]

and that is horsehockey.  That was referred to as the 'sophisticated collective rights' argument in Emerson.  You need to go read it.

Thanks.

Buh-bye  [:K]  

Silence:

Speaking of the authority of the Supreme Court, a brief look at footnotes serves to CLEARLY demonstrate that the AUTHORITATIVE (meaning not what you think but rather current law) interpretation of the second amendment deals specifically with a RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS as being inextricably linked to the concept of a militia. An indepth search would likely reveal a plethora of current law based on the few cases cited here.

Incidentally, this stuff trumps Senate testimony which has absolutely zero legal effect. (This is Supreme Court Law folks)

please browse to
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/

legalese---anyone who talks about reasonable restrictions to me is a gun grabber...they made up the phrase and only their friends parrot it..just like everyone that says "assault rifle" automatically, to me, sounds like a Nazi. Because that's where the phrase is from.
And no, I don't care what they think, I don't want to hear it, and it has no relevance on my understanding. Are you saying that I have to investigate Satanism to be a christian? NO..one simple sentence, no crawfishing.
As for your next post...that individual references the Supreme court and numerous rulings.....that's farther down the page...the testimony is convenient as a handy list of items to back up my arguments legally with supreme and superior court rulings. And the most basic tent of our system is this one.....not the supreme court...
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That
to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving
their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.

Again Silence, you chose your punctuation to fit your point. Lets try quoting the whole sentence

"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 first part before the comma is a dependent clause, as is the second portion between commas. Neither of those may stand freely on their own. So are you suggesting that both of those sentence fragments were supposed to mean something standing alone? Are you suggesting that after the word State that a period should be inserted?

Incidentally, that was not MY interpretation of the amendment. If you will kindly browse to the address provided in the last post, you will discover that any RIGHT to bear arms must be linked with the ability of the people to support a well regulated militia. Not my interpretation, just the Supreme Court interpretation. You are, of course, free to disagree as we all are and as we all might. HOWEVER, it's the law and that's a fact. I apologize for my conversational laziness in my earlier post. As noted earlier I will not fail to quote extensively and viciously in the furure.

And legalese is wrong once again...
The currently effective Militia Act

(a)  The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and . . . 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

Hound, the Supreme Court is not a tent or a tenet. Words mean nothing, the authority of your government and the ability of the Feds to kick down your door and execute your ass means everything under the guise of the law.

I think that at a minimum a reasonable restriction on firearms would require a person to know how to operate it. Maybe that person could not be homicidally insane either. Maybe you should have to have supervision or parental permission before you let a 5 year old have a gun. Anyone that would disagree with that, well you are the folks that are endangering my right to possess a gun. Extremist 'guns for everyone' attitudes are easy for 'gun grabbers' to pick up on and distort. Those attitudes will contribute to the decline of your ability to own firearms.

As far as the Supreme Court goes, it is VERY CLEAR that you have no right to own a weapon not connected with the support of a well regulated militia according to the men in robes.

Ok, that's just plain retarded.

You didn't read anything and your ignorance is astounding hound. The militia Act has ZERO to do with the interpretation of the Constitution. The SUPREME COURT is the arbiter of the meaning of militia for the purposes of the Constitution, not Congress. You have proven yourself uneducable. I bid you good day.

Erm Senate testimony?  WTF?  What Senate testimony?


OHHHHH!  I got it.

You thunked that Emerson was Senate Testimony.  Wrong.

I was referring to [i]US v Emerson[/i] (in the 5th Ciruit)  Where they disected the 2nd Amendment, and [i]Miller v US[/i]. They gave a really nice description of the Second and what the various FF and their peers thought and wrote about, and they related it to what the [i]Miller[/i] decision really means, not what the 'collectivist' CLAIM it means.

As to your misguided and erroneous interpretation. You are right, they are not seperate ideas.  But you are reading them backwards.  It should be the People have the right to keep and bear arms, and that a militia (being made up of the people) is necessary for the security of a free State.  That the necessity of the militia is ONE of the reasons for the people to have the right to arms guaranteed by the BoR, but it is not the ONLY reason.

Silence:

I was not referring to Emerson, thanks but rather the link provided by Hound.

One last time, not my reading but that of the Supreme Court.

Hey Trollboy!

Read the damn Constitution.

The Supreme Court is not the arbiter of what the Militia is, it is the Congress, as stated in Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution:

[i]The Congress shall have the Power ... To provide for the organizing, arming, and discipling, the Militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.[/i]

Shit falls (Law of Gravity, VI-1.3b)

And wherever you got that reading from is in error.  

The SCOTUS has never said aything about a 'right of the Militia'.  

If you think they have please provide a cite (of the case) and a link to the cite.

A parting thought as I return to work to give advice to people who will pay me for it rather than ungrateful folks who pay nothing and are far too stubborn to be educated.

How on earth do people who can't even spell common words properly, even when a spell checker is available, (separate for instance) come to the conclusion that they know more about the law than the Supreme Court? Food for thought.

If you begin to understand at any point in your life that you don't know it all and your point of view is not the only point of view I encourage you to REALLY READ the annotations to the texts you so heavily rely on (such as annotations provided by my link to the 2d amendment)

Until then, I stand with you as brothers-at-arms (although we fail to see eye to eye) and support our rights to possess firearms.

What the hell man. You don't believe in any legal definition for the word arms? When they wrote the bill of rights arms they REALLY meant "any firearm (as defined in the year of 2002) that is produced" PLEASE!!! Don't place your "reasonable" restrictions on me by tailoring the word [red]arms[/arms] to your personal defintion. What are you going to do next, define "sex"? Your just as bad as clinton. The word "arms" meant and means EVERY weapon in this context!!

I don't know what it is like in Florida, but here in Colorado I can be in and out of a gunstore in less time than I can buy a mattress. Literally.
If that is too much of a hassle than these people would not buy a gun anyways.

Tanks legalknees, eye neded too b insultted. Now you obviously are ignoring what Congress AND the Supremes have said about a militia. That in itself is a break in your arguments and you are making the same argument that the gun-grabbers do.....arms are only for the "militia". Which I have proven by example, is the entire body of the people.

Some of you guys scare me. You are the [red]nuts[/red] that smear all gun owners. Here you are in one post saying that we need to go to war with Iraq, because he might have weapons of mass destruction. Then here you are in this post saying that we have the right to buy the same weapons over here with NO regulation whatsoever. Ohh I like that world, Hussien could just fly over here in his completely unchecked airline (our legal right) and pick up his custom made weapons of mass destruction(our legal right) then blow up congress. Oh yeah, you guys are true americans.
[rolleyes][rolleyes][rolleyes][rolleyes][rolleyes][rolleyes][rolleyes][rolleyes][rolleyes]

Legalese77 is a blind liberal. Pity him. He does not understand that the framers of the constitution had intent. The rights of the People.

The people don't give a damn about what you may have been brainwashed with as an impressionable child. The fact is that the 2nd amendment was put there to protect the people from a tyrannical government.

Now do you think that that government can take those rights away?

Molon Labe.

*Sigh* sadly, I am not making ANY argument just trying to present the way things are...maybe you could do me a favor and read what I have to say for a change.

Again, I don't care what law Congress passes. Under the current scheme of government, the Supreme court is the final arbiter of the Constitution. Congress is not permitted to change the meaning of the Constitution legislatively. That's what amendments are for.

"Miller [U.S. v Miller] holds 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,''' Lewis v U.S. 455 U.S.55 at 65 (S.Ct.1980)

remember, militia is not what you or Congress says, irrespective of the Militia Act. All terms of the Constitution are defined by the Supreme Court. Incidentally, my earlier post pointed out that the same words FREQUENTLY have different meanings in different contexts.

It doesn't matter if it's not right or not fair or you just don't like it. I'm not necessarily arguing with you as you continually perceive. I am just trying to be helpful. My initial point and only reason I posted was to demonstrate that the Constitution is fluid and may be interpreted and reinterpreted a number of ways.

Seriously now, find me a case that overrules Lewis and I will admit ignorance.

As for Silence, I apologized a long time ago for the unfortunate wording of the earlier post. If all you can do is quote that over and over again then you're talking to yourself. I never meant to say or imply that there is a right of militia or that a militia has rights. In fact, I was trying to understand how you could separate the two thoughts (well regulated militia and bearing arms) and maintain any degree of sense in the language of the amendment. The above quoted language concisely makes the point. It's not my point, argument or stance, it is that of the Supreme Court.

TelTech, you are an illiterate moron. At no time have I advocated the banning or confiscation of any weapon at any time or for any reason. I have merely suggested that they should not be something any fool can purchase like a pack of gum. Yes, I think the government can take away your rights. What the hell do you think happened at Waco and Ruby Ridge. The U.S. government routinely executes people under the auspices of law, totally innocent people. Is it right? Of course not. Can they and will they. You bet your ass. How you come to your conclusion that I am a liberal is a total mystery. I suppose that from now on I will resort to labelling and name-calling when I post because it is the only species of discussion many of you understand.

And rickyj enters the room.....since you are new to this discussion...I will softly ask you a question. How is restricting me from owning anything going to effect a person in a country that is allowed to legally buy anything from US?
Including all of those horrible WMD's that the US sold him. He can buy anything he wants...get it?

Ok legalese...who does the supreme court say is the militia?

What the Supreme Court does or says is not necessarily correct.

What?
Do you believe that the USA sold him the WMD that we now wish to destroy? I am pretty sure Iraq can buy almost nothing from the US. Not night vision goggles or M-16s and sure as hell not WMD.

In my opinion, one of the best arguments that the 2nd Amendment is an INDIVIDUAL right, NOT TO BE INFRINGED, comes from recent study done by the Virginia Institute for Public Policy. A link to the Study, "A Primer on the Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms," has been on AR15.com before but it seems appropriate to review it again as part of this thread.

[url=http://www.virginiainstitute.org/publications/primer_on_const.php]A Primer on the Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms[/url]

I have had the dabate about "reasonable" gun laws on many occasions with my wife. She happens to be a teacher who is surrounded by the typical, liberal, socialist teaching crowd who are very anti-2nd Amendment. Fortunatley, I have slowly begun to gain my wife's understanding and support for the 2nd Amendment. Her teaching friends are another story. Just the other night we were discussing this very issue. I told her the only "reasonable" gun laws that I do/will agree to is a minimum age requirement to purchase and posses firearms and a restriction on individuals convicted of a felony, domestic violence and those who are mentally incompetent. The problem with limiting the individuals above is just how do go about finding out if one is a felon etc... I guess the answer is a background check which I DO NOT support - catch 22.

Just my .02

Ricky...yes prior to George the elders little war, I believe in the past that we sold him all kinds of stuff......now will you answer my question.

Legalese77, how can you be so wrong and not see it?

What is the intent. The intent. The intent.

Do you understand the meaning of the word?

The phrase "Living Constitution" is a wrongheaded liberal concept. Hence, my calling you a liberal. Excuse me for assuming.

And what on earth do you mean the Supreme Court is not right? That you disagree? That their interpretation is faulty?

I don't care, tell it to the cops, tell it to the judge, tell it to the ATF when they gun you down. I have at no point in this entire thread argued for or against the propriety of the decisions made. I am just giving you the facts. If you can cite me to authority that says the authority I have cited is not valid, be my guest. Again, I have not expressed an opinion on the 'right' or 'wrong' of Supreme Court jurisprudence either way, I have merely stated a fact. You are free to violate or obey the laws as you see fit. Just remember the consequences. Is it right? Not my decision.

As for liberalism, being anti-gun (which I am not) does not make a liberal (depending on your defintion). Believe it or not, many other people assess other factors such as one's postition on taxes, unions, abortion, etc.

Please learn to distinguish between an explication of the law and the advocacy of a position.

As to the Judicial definition of militia, I have run out of time for today but promise to research it tomorrow at lunch if you promise to read carefully my posts in the future.

As to the living constitution, it is a fact of life. That's fine if you support an intentionalist method of interpretation. The Supreme Court clearly does not as the interpretation of words that have not changed has changed. A fact, not an opinion but a fact. I'm just stating facts. I'm not debvating right or wrong should or shouldn't, never have.

I don't get it, even [b]IF[/b] you argue that it was only for malitia, accornind to title 10......boys aged 17-45 every man is in the malitia.  Though I don't buy the only for the malitia argument....

It seems from reading the posts that anyone willing to take up arms in secuirity of our country is technically in the unorganized malita, and expected to come in defense and provide  their own arms at that....

Juist for the record, I proclaim myself part of the unorganized malitia, as I'm sure most of us would.

So all should be OK right?????

Ok legalese see ya on wednes.....

Woooooooo!! Im coming in late. I posted something similar in the Legal forum about "ARMS" including explosive ordnance a while back.

Background checks are not an infringement on your right to acquire a weapon. Unlike mandatory safty courses in order to buy a weapon. Safty Courses place the ability to excersise your right in the hands of the intructor/coordinator. This is wrong, but a Background check only determines if you are a felon or mentally handicapped to the point you cant tell the difference between right and wrong. If a Background check does not clear in what? 5-7 days you get the weapon anyway. If you must wait, then i would agree that it would infringe as then the govt could delay the process as it could with mandatory safty course.

I do not support background checks in private sales. ONLY for established buisness's.-also helps protect them for liability. I also would not support gun rationing or 15 day waiting periods. Only the NICS check.

I would agree that a safty course is wise and logical. It should really be taught in School with replica firearms. From Kindergarten (dont touch, tell an adult) to High School (Basic function/handling charteristics for common arms).

Hell we had a real Rem 870 and 700 in our class room in High School. I was in the FAA and had Hunter Education Safty in the class room. spent a few weeks on it and took a test. so my idea of having School classes on firearm safty is easily workable.

Explosive ordnance is not easily applied to private ownership. perhaps if there were a local place with security and [b]INSURANCE[/b] it could be pulled off. This of course would be manned by organized state militia.-and provide instruction in use of said devices for domestic defense. I realize that this is not really workable now, but about a third of the US has organized state militias and this would be a role they could fullfill.

Another factor in private ownership of explosive ordnance would be-who would sell it? The govt is not obligated to sell its wares, nor its contractors who may not wish to hassle with liability suits. Though this is been turning out fine for firearm manufacturers. the sheer number of law suits and legal hassles would be an obstacle for such a small eccentric market. Explosive would'nt be cheap! espicially when you have to contribute to their safe keeping and insure.

any questions/views?

non-lethal lib

I get so frustrated that our freedoms are being trampled on and our Constitution is being dissasembled our children are being taught that we have a living constitution, that right is wrong and wrong is right. Our so called elected representatives are lying thieves that I just have to get it off my chest.

Legalese77 I apologize for being rude. Maybe I'm wrong. But I think our government is turning to crap right before my eyes and it's like I'm the only one who sees it. I have no respect for the people who are running this country democrat or republican I know of one person that I would undoubtedly vote for in this country - Ron Paul, and every bill he sends up is ignored. I vote regularly to no avail.

I give up.

Libertoon...thanks for the new view.....and now to discuss....background checks....nope...too much abuse. If you could absolutely guarantee destruction of records maybe....but you are once again giving your right to someone else.
Explosives.......why not? lots of non-lethal needs for them. And also this leads to people being arrested for having pipe in the house etc.

Right on! while i can see some of Legalese77's points i disagree with the view that the constituiton is "living"-read: open to leftist interpetation.

True that the constitution can be changed, it must be done so my a super majority. The BOR itself is non-negotiable.

As one of the founding fathers said (whom i cant remember [:(]) that if the constitution was just open to interpetation, then "why a written consitution"?

"Killing is Negotiation" lib [:D][:D][;D]

If it were done my way, then yes. Such records would be destroyed within at least 15 buisness days. Better still, if it is suppossed to be "instant", then in one days time, if they cant pull something up on you, then you walk with your new weapon.[:)]

Im not against US citizens owning explosive ordnance such as Grenades, Flashbangs, 40mm 'nades, Stingers, LAW's and similiar devices. Its just that the principle is difficult to apply to society. Even with Local armories in your neighborhood it would be cost prohibitive for the average joe to go out and buy a LAW or Stinger weapon only to have to plump down the cash for proper storage at a secure/insured locale.

Security at such an armory would not come cheap. It would require not only the time and training of said militia members (overseen by National Guard), but also electronic surveilance equipment and alarms. I cant imagine this coming cheap. This would mean that such places would be rare.

I've been to several Nat. Guard amories and was not impressed at the lack of obviouse safe guards, but i'd bet money breaking in and making off with M249's and LAW's would be easier said then done.

alarming lib

KelTech, I too apologize for anything out of line that I might have said. I think that, more or less, we are all on the same team here. I think that there was a great deal of initial confusion as to  the point I was trying to make.

I dislike governmental babysitting, which is exactly what a great number of laws boil down to. The message that I perceive is that our Federal, State and local lawmakers have a low opinion of the general populace. They have a high opinion of themselves and take it upon themselves to pass laws that are for 'our protection and welfare.' No offense to any particular legislators for the generalization.

This is the same approach that parents take with children. I despise volumes of legislation for exactly that reason.

I do, however, think that guns should be minimally regulated. I can't say to what extent but gun owners should understand basic safety and operation concepts. How many people die each year because someone fails to follow rudimentary gun safety.

I am more frightened of undertrained, underqualified, overzealous law enforcement with guns than I am of many citizens.

In my community, guns are a necessary tool. Any farmer with livestock is sure to have at least a rifle. This are critical tools for protecting livestock, putting down sick or suffering animals and for self protection where rural police coverage cannot be counted on for protection.

Someone earlier mentioned their disgust at the mention of "assault weapons." I too want to vomit every time I hear someone mention the term on Tv, in conversation, etc. Very few people, including many who are well-educated (I distinguish b/w education and intelligence) haven't the slightest idea what makes a weapon an assault weapon. Go ahead and ask a non-gun enthusiast what makes an assault weapon. Then tell them what the legislature's definition is, it blows people's minds. It is hard to comprehend how a bayonet lug transforms an ordinary rifle into a weapon deserving of the title "assault weapon." Certainly the bullets when fired from such a weapon do not become any more lethal.

Of course few people like the idea that the Constitutional text can remain the same from one day to the next but can change in meaning. The potential for abuse exists at both extremes.

On the other hand, the Constitution needs to have some degree of flexibility. Many issues that exist in today's social and political climate were unheard of when the document was drafted. DNA tests to locate criminal suspects, for example. Did the drafters INTEND for the word "search" to include the search for DNA? Of course not, they had no concept. So should the government then be permitted to demand and retain DNA samples of all citizens? I should hope not. That is an instance where I am relieved that the Court has been willing to stretch the protections of the Constitution.

I'm not advocating any particular policy here as I don't have all the answers and certainly am not running for office. I am merely interested in enlightening others as to how tenuous their rights are.

I hope nobody has any hard feelings, in order to keep our firearms we must stick together.

posted by Hound
[u]...the government decides that Mormons are "a treat to the safety and well being of the united states" and decides to attack their church and burn it to the ground with the people inside....instead they are met with a hail of bullets and decide that this is not the way to go about things...It happened in Texas....at Waco[u/}

Ok About waco, I'm sure our governemt is innocent of wrong doing but I really doubt that they go "Hey, here are some upstanding citizens the want to practice their religion. Lets go murder them and burn down their house because we want to" I'm sure our government had a good reason to go into Waco. How they did it and what happened is a different story.

Case law on militia:

"National Guard is modern militia reserved to states by Constitution" Maryland for Use of Levin v. U. S.,381 U.S. 41, 85 S.Ct. 1293, 14 L.Ed.2d 205 U.S.Pa.May 03, 1965

The above shall not be read to mean that the National guard is the exclusive militia. I ran out of time looking for more stuff. Incidentally, it may have been understood by some that I was arguing that the militia act is invalid or of no effect. That is not the case.

HOWEVER, Congress can not pass any law inconsistent with the Supreme Court's interpretation (right or wrong) of the Constitution. As long as the Militia act is consistent with the Supreme Court's interpretation, it may stand.

Congress' use of the word militia in legislation is not binding upon the Supreme Court. The exact same words frequently have different meanings in different contexts. Go to any law library and look in your local state laws for example: the definition of employee pursuant to 5 ILCS 375/3 (the definition is used only for this one act and is drastically different under other Illinois law)

(k) "Employee" means and includes each officer or employee in the service of a department who (1) receives his compensation for service rendered to the department on a warrant issued pursuant to a payroll certified by a department or on a warrant or check issued and drawn by a department upon a trust, federal or other fund or on a warrant issued pursuant to a payroll certified by an elected or duly appointed officer of the State or who receives payment of the performance of personal services on a warrant issued pursuant to a payroll certified by a Department and drawn by the Comptroller upon the State Treasurer against appropriations made by the General Assembly from any fund or against trust funds held by the State Treasurer, and (2) is employed full-time or part- time in a position normally requiring actual performance of duty during not less than 1/2 of a normal work period, as established by the Director in cooperation with each department, except that persons elected by popular vote will be considered employees during the entire term for which they are elected regardless of hours devoted to the service of the State, and (3) except that "employee" does not include any person who is not eligible by reason of such person's employment to participate in one of the State retirement systems under Articles 2, 14, 15 (either the regular Article 15 system or the optional retirement program established under Section 15-158.2) or 18, or under paragraph (2), (3), or (5) of Section 16-106, of the Illinois Pension Code, but such term does include persons who are employed during the 6 month qualifying period under Article 14 of the Illinois Pension Code. Such term also includes any person who (1) after January 1, 1966, is receiving ordinary or accidental disability benefits under Articles 2, 14, 15 (including ordinary or accidental disability benefits under the optional retirement program established under Section 15-158.2), paragraphs (2), (3), or (5) of Section 16-106, or Article 18 of the Illinois Pension Code, for disability incurred after January 1, 1966, (2) receives total permanent or total temporary disability under the Workers' Compensation Act or Occupational Disease Act as a result of injuries sustained or illness contracted in the course of employment with the State of Illinois, or (3) is not otherwise covered under this Act and has retired as a participating member under Article 2 of the Illinois Pension Code but is ineligible for the retirement annuity under Section 2-119 of the Illinois Pension Code. However, a person who satisfies the criteria of the foregoing definition of "employee" except that such person is made ineligible to participate in the State Universities Retirement System by clause (4) of subsection (a) of Section 15-107 of the Illinois Pension Code [FN12] is also an "employee" for the purposes of this Act. " Employee" also includes any person receiving or eligible for benefits under a sick pay plan established in accordance with Section 36 of the State Finance Act. "Employee" also includes each officer or employee in the service of a qualified local government, including persons appointed as trustees of sanitary districts regardless of hours devoted to the service of the sanitary district, and each employee in the service of a qualified rehabilitation facility and each full-time employee in the service of a qualified domestic violence shelter or service, as determined according to rules promulgated by the Director

Not the definition most people would give. I realize this is not the best example and it would have been better to use an example in the federal system but I think it should still drive home a point. If I get a chance I will search for some good federal examples.

Congress has and will continue to pass laws that are against what the Supremes have said. I will remind you that Shrub recently signed one that he said was unconstituitional.....I think that it is seen in their rulings, specifically in Miller, that the court has agreed with the verbage in the Militia act, to whit, that all are the unorganized militia.

You're not alone, I see it to.

as far as the militia ...

[url]http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html
[/url]

What about Perpich vs. the US?  Didn't that establish that the National Guard is NOT the milita as mentioned in the Second Amendment?

I agree 100% with legalese. He is correct and the attorney general's stance on the 2nd amdmendment supports his position.

Legalese, have you ever thought of running for office under the republican ticket? You would have many supporters here as soon as you got that "r" after your name.

Why should the person in custody not be allowed to carry a weapon?  You guys are ok with ex-felons carrying. Westerfield had not been proven guilty till the end of his trial. By following the logic that anybody should be allowed to carry, David was denied his rights. That way at least your rationale would be consistent in allowing anyone to carry.

well this just won't die...because he is in custody and temporarily deprived of rights...that is what custody is.

Why is it that people argue that all the rights afforded in the constitution apply to individuals except for the 2nd amendment?  Do you not think that the interpretation of this right belonging to some arbitrary group called a militia is wrong?  That would make a lot of supreme court rulings on the subject wrong also?  If the other rights in the constitution and amendments added to it are for individuals, then the 2nd amendment also applies to individuals, not a group of people known as a militia.  The supreme court is a political animal, no matter how many lawyers might say it is not.  It is also made up of people and people are known to have their own bias' and prejudices'.

They don't already? Where there is a will, there is way.