From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Rights and Legal Manuevering (Was Re: democratic platform)
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 17:26:09 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.060136.27536@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <veal.138@utkvm1.utk.edu> veal@utkvm1.utk.edu (David L. Veal) writes:
>>>>...and "militia" according to the 1792
>>>>Militia Act meant all free males from 17 to 45.

The act in question had two relevant provisions.  One concerned people
that could be called into service.  Those people were certain free
males aged 17 to 45.  (There were large classes of males excluded
including sailors.)  The second concerned people who were required to
own guns.  It was not restricted to free males of appropriate age; it
had neither age NOR gender exemptions.

So much for the argument that the militia definition in that act
argues for a restricted definition of "well regulated militia".

BTW - The first phrase talks about the well regulated militia and is
about distribution and allocation of power; it is a restriction on
govt power.  See Scarry's discussion.  Thus, Darcy's argument about
the meaning of "the people" being restricted by "militia" doesn't even
come into play.  (It doesn't make sense either, but that's another
question.)

>If the word "militia" meant "males between 17 and 45" when the 2nd was 
>enacted, why does it suddenly apply to females because of the 14th?

Since the "if" isn't true, the question isn't all that interesting....

>Does EVERYONE constitute "the press"?

Actually, they do.  The feds have the same legal power to shut down my
home press that they do wrt the New York Times.  The fact that the
times has better lawyers and is better at getting favors doesn't
change that.

>>     The view that the Second Amendment does not apply to individuals is
>>a fairly new one, originating primarily in the twentieth century.
>
>There wasn't much of a NEED to analyze the 2nd until population densities
>and crime rates started skyrocketing, now was there?

Ah, yet another claim that turns out to be false.  Modern US crime
rates are not "new".  High population densities are also rather old
even though modern large cities are new.

Need or not, the 2nd amendment was analysed fairly early.  Cruikshank
said that the 2nd and the 1st were both individual rights protected
against federal infringement.  (The Dred Scott "proof" that the
off-white weren't "people" is that then they'd have RKBA and we can't
have that, now can we.  Interestingly enough, that's the position of
NYC and gun controllers.)  However, it also said that "darkies" would
have to look to states for protection against infringement by
individuals despite the federal civil rights act of that time.  The
modern interpretation of the 14th amendment says that the feds can
protect individuals from individuals who infringe their 1st amendment
rights and that the 1st applies to the state.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:341 alt.politics.elections:8933