From: gray@rsvl.unisys.com (Bill Gray )
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.usa,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Defined: National Police Force
Date: 20 Aug 92 22:51:18 GMT
Organization: rsvl.unisys

jrutledg@cs.ulowell.edu (John Lawrence Rutledge) writes:

>	If you read the whole second amendment you would have found
        ^^ ^^^ ^^^^ --a splendid suggestion; I hope you follow it.  :-)
>a preface to the "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."  This 
>preface specificly mentions a "well regulated militia."  I don't remember
>the exact wording but it is something close to "Being a well regulated
>militia is required to protect democracy, the right of the people to keep
>and bears arms shall not be abridged."  This mention of a "well regulated
>militia" in the same context of the "right to bear arms" has been
>interpreted to mean that people have the right to bears arms in a well
>regulate militia, e.g., a state militia.  

"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."

When one adjusts the sights on a firearm to hit the point of aim, one is
said to be "regulating" that weapon.  One could make a strong linguistic
case that "well-regulated militia" meant "an body of citizens who can shoot
straight and who are not under government control (except when called forth
by Congress or being trained by their states)."

>	The second amendent says nothing directly about bearing arms 
>outside of a "well regulate militia", but some have said it is implied.
>The Supreme Court, which is given the absolute authroity on the Constitution 
>by the Constitution itself, has already said that the right to bear arms
>only applies to state militias.  Until the Supreme Court changes its

Actually, no, the supremes *took* absolute control in 1803 in Marbury v
Madison.  If, however, you meant that they are the court of last resort,
you are correct.  :-)

However, you are dead wrong about the court's decisions WRT the 2nd Amendment
or the right to keep and bear arms outside of the "well-regulated militia."
You might want to reread the Dred Scott case; it is hardly a hallmark of
judicial temperance or respect for the rights of men, but it is still the law
--at least so I think.  I believe it is in the discredited but not overturned
category.  Corrections welcomed.

Anyway, Taney wrote that one of the reasons Dred Scott could not possibly
be considered free was that he would then be entitled to all the rights
of other men, *including the right to go armed wherever he went.*

Several otehr decisions, including one by the current court, reaffirm
that the 2nd Amendment refers to individual rights.

>desicion, or a constitution amendment is passed, this is how the Second
>Amendment is interpreted.  
>	Question, has the Supreme Court ever debated if the right to bear
>arms outside of a militia falls under the Ninth Amendment?

Probably not.  If they did, they'd have to repudiate Blackstone, who argued
passionately that people have the right to self-defense.  He said that no
valid law prohibiting self-defense could even be made, but he'd never met a
Democrat.

>	The Constitution never says or even implies that the right to
>bear guns has anything to due with any of the above purposes.  It does
>however, state that guns can be used by a militia to overthrow an unjust 
>government.  

Sorry, John.  The constitution says absolutely nothing of the kind.  In
fact, it provides for "calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of
the Union, SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS and repel Invasions."

However, the framers specifically intended that arms be in private hands
precisely so that the government could be overthrown as a last resort.
The Federalist Papers make that pretty clear.  The language of the
2nd Amendment was perfectly plain for well over a century until the Congress
usurped the state's role in militia management in (I think) 1916 by creating
the National Guard.

That act, which specifically states that it is done under the Congress's power
to raise armies, NOT its power to arm the militia, leaves the Nasty Guard
as components of the the respective branches of the service.  Its bills are
paid (about 95%) by the Feds.  Its weapons and other materiel are owned by the
Feds.

Still, it leaves the Nasty Guard in the limbo of seeming to be the militia
when it is really part of the standing army/air force.  Hence the confusion
in the minds of many decent people about what the Guard really is.

Now tell me--do you think the Feds are going to call up the Nasty Guard
to overthrow a tyrannical federal government?  If not, and if we agree
that that is one mission of the militia, then the right to keep and
bear arms must apply to *individuals* and must include weapons useful
in such an enterprise--such as the so-called "assault" rifles
that the Brady Bunch keeps hyperventilating about.

Well, my ride's here.  Have fun!

Bill
-- 
: gray@rsvl.unisys.com                      :                                  :
:                                           :  My gun is safer than Ted        :
: Unisys has enough problems without being  :  Kennedy's car.                  :
: blamed for my personal opinions.          :                                  :
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.bizarre,alt.politics.kibo