From: fcrary@ocf.berkeley.edu (Frank Crary)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: RKBA - are you missing the point?
Date: 26 Aug 1992 06:13:59 GMT
Organization: U. C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: lightning.berkeley.edu

In article <81248@bcsaic.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com writes:
>I disagree with the idea that the supporters of the original amendment all 
>had the same interpretation of it.

Then why was there no debate of the meaning, when the Amendment was put 
before the House of Representatives? A few days before, they were quite
willing to debate minor semantic differences over the First Amednment.

>Nevertheless, the language of the amendment
>refers to the security of a "free State".  Does that mean "independent" state or
>"democratic" state?  My guess is that the overriding concern of those who 
>ratified it was foreign invasion, although I have no doubt that *some* of its
>supporters had your interpretation.

Madison, when he introduced the Bill of Rights to Congress,  specifically 
said he drafted them to satisfy the opposition to the Constitution (as
represented by the debates over ratification.)

This opposition included substantial objections to government control
of the militia, and the threat of tyranny if the people were disarmed
or the militia weakened (while the government maintianed a regular army.)

Given this, I think we can do better than guess at the meaning of a
"free State", as used in the Second Amendment: A state free from 
repressive government, either from foreing conquest _or_ domestic 
tyrrany.

>In fact, it is the courts who decide what rights are yours and what rights have
>been ceded to government.  You don't have the right to interpret the law, 
>although you are certainly entitled to your opinion of what it means.  The
>right of interpretation is one right that clearly is ceded to the judiciary
>in the Constitution.

Check again: The Constitution makes no mention what so ever of has the 
authority to interpert it. I have as much right as the Supreme Court to
do so. The Court, however, has a great deal of power to enforce it's
interpertation: It can allow laws _it_ considers constitutional to be
enforced, or prevent the enforcement of laws _it_ sees as unconstitutional.
It wasn't untill 1803, in Marbury v. Madison, that the Court claimed
any jurisdiction over interperting the Constitution, and said it would
use it's legidimate powers to make it's interpertations stick.

The states have also claimed the power to interpert the Constitution,
and nullify any federal law they consider unconstitutional. This was{
done in 1799, with the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions (with respect to
the clearly unconstitutional Alien and Sedition Acts), and in 1860 (61?)
with the South Carolina resolutions (with respect to federal anti-slavery
laws.) The South Carolina resolutions demonstrated the main difference
between Supreme Court and state interpertation: The Court can make it's
opinion stick peacefully (since it controls the Judiciary), while the
states have to win a civil war to enforce their interepertation (should
anyone object...)

                                               Frank Crary
					       CU Boulder
					       (even though I'm 
					       still using my
					       Berkeley
					       account...)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns