Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns

>From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
>Subject: Re: democratic platform

>>The "well-regulated militia" may not be just any old yahoo who can pull
>>a trigger, but "the people" includes every old yahoo, even fingerless ones.
>>The right is not restricted to the militia, but belongs to the people.
>
>Then what is the purpose and effect of the first clause, pray tell?

The Supreme Court, in U.S. v. Miller (1939), used it to restrict
Second Amendment protection to only militia-type arms.  It would have
been much easier for the Court to deny Miller relief simply because he
was not a member of any organized militia, but the Court passed over
this excellent opportunity.  It even referred to "the general obligation
of all adult male inhabitants to possess arms...".

An earlier decision indicated that all capable citizens are a resource,
the reserve militia.  Depriving them from keeping and bearing arms would
deprive the United States from their rightful resources, and disable the
people from performing their duty to the general government.

>>The right of the people shall not be infringed, in order that there be
>>enough of them around to form a militia when it is needed.
>
>If they're all psychotic survivalist nuts with a paranoid suspicion of
>established government, and armed to the hilt, how the hell are you going
>to round them up to form a militia "when it is needed"? 

The usual method has been to draft them.

>From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
>Subject: Re: democratic platform

>>Now, we can argue as to why they wanted this, but the intent is clear,
>>and until revoked, it *is* the law of the land.
>
>Yes, it is the law of the land. Both clauses. Until the first clause is
>specifically repealed, it HAS to have meaning. The NRA interpretation 
>would rob it all useful meaning, and is therefore an implicit repeal.
>Since when is the NRA empowered to repeal parts of Constitutional
>Amendments? Why didn't I get a memo on this? :-)

Your interpretation would require an Orwellian redefinition of "the
right of the people...", and would overturn most state constitutions.

>The Article I stuff is rather moot anyway, since the 2nd Amendment can
>override its provisions, if that is the only reasonable interpretation 
>possible. 

I have seen numerous parts of the Constitution marked as overridden by
subsequent amendment, but I have seen no one other than you indicate
that the Second Amendment overrode any part of it. 

>          Personally, I read the 2nd as permitting "citizen militias" not 
>under the direct control of any governmental subdivision.

A Supreme Court decision indicated that military organization, drill,
and parade are subjects especially under government control.

The constitution of my state excludes any protection of private armed
groups, and explicitly assigns the right to keep and bear arms to the
"individual citizens."  Many other states do likewise.

>From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
>Subject: Re: democratic platform

>Let's get down to the nitty-gritty, shall we? The reason there are no 
>citizen militias is because most folks CAN'T BE BOTHERED participating in 
>such things. 

Organized private militias violate state constitutions in numerous
states that explicitly assign the RKBA to individual citizens.

>>Dred Scott refused to grant CITIZENSHIP to blacks.  It concluded that
>>blacks were NOT citizens of the United States, and could not be declared 
>>citizens by any state.
>>
>>The excerpt above says,  "If black persons WERE citizens, then that
>>would grant them the right to keep and bear arms."  And clearly, the
>>court wasn't having any of that.  Nevertheless, it is a clear statement
>>by the SC that the common US citizen DOES have the RKBA.
>
>It's not clear in the slightest. The paragraph starts off
>
>	"It would give to persons of the negro race..."

Orwell strikes again...

>Does it say ALL persons of the negro race? Of course not. The Justices were
>presumably aghast at the thought of ANY negro being able to keep and carry
>arms, WHETHER THEY WERE MEMBERS OF THE WELL-REGULATED MILITIA OR NOT. ...

>>If you don't like Dred Scott, try United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 
>>110 S. Ct. 1839 (1990).  One of the questions this case raised was,
>>"Who are 'the people'?"  According to Chief Justice Rehnquist in the
>>majority opinion, the phrase "the people" was a term of art used by 
>>the Framers.  Rehnquist wrote:
>>  [Supreme Court passage deleted]
>
>As I have noted previously, the obvious intent of THIS paragraph is to
>expand the scope of the term "the people" beyond some specific limits,

You have it backwards.  This passage came from the ruling (majority)
decision, which limited the meaning of "the people".  It was the
dissenting (minority, i.e. losing) opinion in this case that tried to
expand the scope of "the people" to something closer to "all persons".

>but nowhere does it rule out a subsequent limitation by explicit reference
>elsewhere in the specific statutes.

If such a limitation were reasonable, the Court wouldn't have needed to
discuss the meaning of "the people".

>                                    In the voting example, for instance,
>"the people" is restricted CONSTITUTIONALLY to those of a certain age, and
>CONSTITUTIONALLY, before Amendments, to those of certain races. Obviously,
>then, "the people" forms a raw superset out of which individual provisions
>may carve out subsets. And if this subsetting process was and is 
>constitutional for voting rights, why is it not equally constitutional for
>the RKBA?

Kevin appears to be confused about how the subsets work.  The raw
superset is "all persons," of which a subset is "the people."  Some
constitutional protections cover the former, but others cover only the
later.  Though Rene Martin Verdugo-Urquidez was a "person," he was not a
member of "the people," and was therefore denied the protection he sought.

Dean

  'The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of
   himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this
   section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or
   corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of
   men.'
    --Article I, Section 24, Constitution of the State of Washington.
      Ratified by the people of the Washington Territory, October 1, 1899,
      and representative of many of the 43 state RKBA provisions.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion