From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Who's "free-er"? Intrnat'l response wanted!
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 00:07:51 GMT

In article <Bv298I.7x0@well.sf.ca.us> hluce@well.sf.ca.us (Hudson Hayes Luce) writes:
> re your US Code post in regard to definition of militia -

> This section was drafted sometime after the Constitution was written, at
> least 100 yrs after the fact. 

Not terribly relevant: This is true of the current Title X definition
of the militia; however, the Militia Act of 1792 uses essentially
the same definiton. Further, the writings of Hamilton, George Mason,
E. Gerry, and many others (both Federalist and anti-federalist) all
agree with this definition, that the militia includes "everyone, except
for a few public officials."

>  The intent of the Framers, especuiallyy
> Madison and Jefferson, was to preclude the formation of a permanent
> standing army, which they viewed as a threat to liberty. This last is
> obvious from a cursory reading of the papers of either man.

They _prefered_ to avoid a standing army. However, they also wanted to
assure that such an army, if it did exist, would never be a force
in American government. The Second Amendment was to insure the 
existance of militias, as a military force directly under the control
of the people (as opposed to the government.)

> ...The issue is
> Federal vs State control, with the intent of the Framers' to preserve the
> rights of the States.

Hamilton and the Federalists were _violently_ opposed to any military 
force purely under the control of the control of the states. The
solution was the Article One, Section Eight distribution of power,
that created a _joint_ state/federal authority over the organized militia.

The Second Amendment, by protecting the right of individuals to 
own and train with arms, assured the existance of the militia,
despite neglect or even hostility by the government.

> Mind you, this should be seen as applying only to
> militia ex xxx weapons, such as machineguns and assault rifles. Since
> weapons like handguns and sporting rifles were used for self-defense,
> hunting for food and for sport, they are not covered under the Second
> Amendment 

Could you explain the difference between a "sporting rifle" (intended
for target shooting and hunting) and a "sniper rifle" (of clear
military use). Or why the army routinely issues handguns, if they are
not of military use? Or why the Militia Act of 1792 _specifically_
required citizens to own a rifle, musket or two pistols? (Why 
two pistols, if they were not usefull to militias?)

> In other words, the Second Amendment guarantees to the people the right
> to keep and bear militia weapons (assault rifles, machineguns, mortars,
> cannon, bazookas, anti0-tank weapons, TOWs, etc., etc.).

Explosives which constitute a fire hazard, or for that matter, any 
weapon that an individual can not safely store on his own, can 
reasonably be subject to reasonable local regulation. I believe 
mortars, cannons, bazookas, etc... generally fall under this
catagory.

> The "well-
> regulated" part is to come from the several states, and the militia are
> at all times to be *solely* under the control of the Governors of the
> several States - there was no concept of "Federalization" in the writings
> of the Framers. 

Read Article One, Section Eight. _Neither_ the state nor the federal
government have sole control of the militia. To train the militia,
both have to cooperate. Further, Congress can call up the militia 
and put it under federal control. Since the officers are, however,
appointed by the states, the federal government cannot (as a practicle
matter) call up the militia against the will of the people and the
states.

                                               Frank Crary
                                               CU Boulder
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.atheism,alt.censorship,soc.college,talk.politics.misc