HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 17:00:17 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.003520.8273@cfctech.cfc.com> kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>What is the purpose of the first clause then? I don't buy the "preamble"
>argument, of course. It's not marked as such, nor is it set off in any way 
>shape or form from the following piece of substantive legislation. It is, in
>fact, in the same sentence. Can you cite any other instance where a "preamble"
>occurs in the same sentence as a piece of real legislation, Andy, either in
>the Constitution, or in ANY major legislation? I'd be VERY surprised if you
>could.

Article One, Section Eight, Clause Eight:

"[The Congress has the power] To promote the Progress of Science and the
useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Invertors the
exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

Not only is this a use of a "preamble" in another part of the
Constitution, but (despite much closer gramatic linkage to the main
clause than is the case for the Second Amendment), the "preamble" does
not limit the main clause. Congress can issue patents to inventions
that do not "promote the Progress of Science" and copyrights to works
that are not "useful Art." In fact, any effort to limit copyrights
in this was would be considered grossly improper.

>Wrong. It has to be "well-regulated", and it has to be "necessary to the
>security of a free state", but there is no requirement that it be govt-
>controlled.

Neither of these is a restriction on the right: The first clause simply
states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
free State..." This is a simple statement of fact (or political 
opinion). By the reasoning of the framers "necessary to the security of
a free State" is an inherent property of _all_ "well regulated militia",
and to assure the exictance of these necessary organizations, "the
right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

> In fact, the term "the people" indicates that the purpose of
>the Amendment was to establish an RKBA for militias _other_ than the ones 
>controlled by the Federal Government, e.g. State militias or possibly even
>citizen militias. The Federal Government didn't NEED an RKBA established
>in the BOR -- they already had one from the original Constitution.

That much, at least, is reasonably accurate.

>>UNLESS one makes the
>>last connection, the militia clause's meaning can't have any relevance
>>to the discussion, 

>It either limits the applicability of the RKBA, or it's just decoration.

No, it is a seperate and related point: That militias (e.g. armed 
citizens) should be well trained and organized beacuse such forces
are necessary to the security of a free state.

                                                  Frank Crary
                                                  CU Boulder

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: A question on U.S. Constitution
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 23:13:34 GMT


-- 
Charles Scripter   *   cescript@phy.mtu.edu
Dept of Physics, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI 49931
-------------------------------------------------------------------
With your one remaining eye, please do NOT look back into the laser
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: jimc@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Jim Cox)
Subject: Re: 2nd Amendment Myths
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin, Texas
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 15:05:43 GMT

In article <81757@bcsaic.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com writes:

>
>                                       So far, nobody has been able
>to supply me with a shred of evidence in favor of the "well-regulated"
>interpretation as "well-trained".

<clip, clip, clip>

>    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@atc.boeing.com)   Seattle, WA

Either: A) your news feed has died.
        B) your news feed is set to filter out followups to your post.
        C) you have a bad case of 'I got my mind made up, don't confuse me'.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Jim Cox                            Internet: jimc@bartman.sps.mot.com
Phone: (512) 891-3182          UUCP Address: cs.utexas.edu!oakhill!otis!jimc
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:20207 alt.politics.clinton:3178 alt.politics.bush:3112
From: fcrary@ocf.berkeley.edu (Frank Crary)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Clinton's Gestapo/Plan for takeover
Date: 27 Aug 1992 06:10:47 GMT
Organization: U. C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: lightning.berkeley.edu

In article <27AUG199200095943@chemvx.tamu.edu> lemoine@chemvx.tamu.edu (Brett G. Lemoine) writes:
>In article <l_cnb3#.crisp@netcom.com>, crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) spouts.
>}the "assault weapons with no legitimate hunting purpose" combined
>}with his plan to put 100,000 new police officers on the street as
>}part of a "National Police Force" intended to be used to rub out things
>}he personally finds objectionable is the most dangerous combination...

>Give me a break. This senario is about as likely as you convincing me to
>become a fundamentalist Christian. Personally, I'd say that George strikes
>me as much closer to the dictator type.

It really doesn't matter if Clinton would do anything objectionable with a
"National Police Force." If elected, he would establish one (loyal and
responsible to whom? He hasn't said. We would certainly have less control
over it, than the residents of Los Angelos have over the LAPD.) Clinton
also is very much in favor of disarming the law-abiding citiznes of this 
country. This _could_ (fairly easily) be used by a power-hunger President,
and these changes would remain in effect long after Clinton left office.

What will happen the next time a Richard Nixon is elected? Do you 
really want to see the what such a President could do with a 100,000 man
armed force, loyal to him and charged with maintianing "order"? That 
wouldn't be too different from the old German SS.

						 Frank Crary
						 CU Boulder
						 (even though I'm
						 still using my 
						 Berkeley account...)

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: 2nd Amendment Myths
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organizatoin
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 17:31:14 GMT

In article <81628@bcsaic.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com writes:
>   1)  There is no good reason to believe that "well-regulated militia" only
>       referred to a "well-trained militia," and not the more usual sense
>       of a controlled body.

Fletcher's definition of the term and the 1790s usage doesn't seem to
qualify as a "good reason".

>   2)  The defenders of the so-called "RKBA" as an individual right rest their
>       case on the "original intent" doctrine, which many legal scholars reject
>       on the grounds that the doctrine itself is incompatible with the original
>       intent of the framers.

Actually, the individual right RKBA folk don't necessarily fit into
the original intent school.  It is clever for Wojcik to play on that
confusion, but dishonest.

Most of the individual right RKBA argument is over the meaning of the
words involved.  In Wojcik-land, if "trial" comes to mean "a fight
between champions", then the 4th amendment says that that's what the
accused is entitled to, as long as it's in public.  In Wojcik-land,
the constitution is amended by language change.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Attempt to Repeal NJ's Assault Gun Ban Dead
From: <JCEHC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Thursday, 27 Aug 1992 19:24:47 EDT
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

      I haven't had net access for some months, so I don't really know
what's been discussed lately.  But a quick scan of the last few days
posting shows that this news hasn't been circulated, that the attempt
by New Jersey's Republican controlled State legislature has been
abandoned by the Republican leadership in New Jersey.  The State's
two legislative houses voted overwhelmingly in early August to
throw out the two year old AR ban, and while Gov. Jim Florio promised
to veto the repeal, the Republicans had a comfortable twothirds
majority and should have easily been able to override the veto.

   But a few things have happened since then.  First was the very
public defection of a Republican assemblyman who said he would
not vote for the override.  Then more importantly, Former Republican
Governor Thomas Kean publically came out in support of Florio's
veto.  With that, the Republican leadership crumbled and said
they would attempt to override Florio's veto.

   So after pouring money and volunteer hours into the Republican
party for the past two years, New Jersey's gun owners have been
screwed.   What should they do now?  Well for starters, they might
vent their anger at former Gov. Tom Kean who is the Chairman of
George Bush's reelection committee.  How about asking the Republican
party to repudiate Kean and fire him from Bush's relection campaign.

  I know many of the readers of this group abhor the Democratic party,
but why is that lately the worst enemies that gun owners have are
Republicans.

Michael Gordon
From: dadams@cray.com (David Adams)
Subject: Re: Strong reason to vote for Bush  (was:
Reply-To: dadams@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 2 Sep 92 17:10:14 CDT

In article 17ukr7INNdri@agate.berkeley.edu, fcrary@ocf.berkeley.edu (Frank Crary) writes:
|In article <1992Aug31.132412.28095@hemlock.cray.com> dadams@cray.com writes:
|>The best reason I can think of for voting for Bush (inspite his 
|>broken prommises) is that he has consistently sought for and nominated
|>Supreme Court Justices which would interpret the Constitution according
|>to the philosophy of Judicial Restraint, and not try to rewrite it in
|>order to push some social agenda.
|
|I'm not too enthusastic about judicial restraint: This philosophy also
|holds that the Court shouldn't interfere with Congress' interpertation
|of the Constitution. However, there aren't too many other choices:
|
|The last Justice to support an unconditional, absolute application
|of the Constitution (e.g. thowing out all laws that violate the
|text of the Constitution or it's intended meaning as best the Court
|can determin it) left the Court in 1971 (Hugo Black). 
|
|                                                 Frank Crary
|						 CU Boulder

I'm not to sure that this is a corrolary of "Judicial Restraint".  Further
the current court has no difficulty throwing out any laws that they see
as conflicting with the constitution (for example, take flag burning)
regardless of congressional opion.

All the justices seem to accept Marbury v. Madison.

---
--David C. Adams  Statistician  Cray Research Inc.  dadams@cray.com
___________________________________________________________________
       Old Sourdoughs never die.  They just ferment away.
From: fcrary@ocf.berkeley.edu (Frank Crary)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: RKBA - are you missing the point?
Date: 29 Aug 1992 02:25:32 GMT
Organization: U. C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: lightning.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Aug28.183032.16955@cbfsb.cb.att.com> osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X) writes:
>	Un fortunately judges have set verdicts aside in the past.  I must
>	shamefully admit that I do not know under what, if any, circumstances
>	that they are permitted to do this.  I would hope that they could not
>	legitimately set aside a not guilty verdict or some other form of
>	nullification.  Any of you guys know anything about this?

I'm not sure either, but the cases I've heard of were in civil courts
only. For example, a Baltimore psycic who sued a medical technician
because his CAT scan had destroyed her supernatural powers. Having seen
convincing evidence that the woman no longer had any psycic powers, the
jury held the medtech liable for damages. The judge set this verdict
asside, for (hopefully) obvious reasons.

It's not the same as setting a verdict asside, but apealet courts
can order a retrial, if they think a proceedural error influenced the
jury. I'm not sure, but some judges might consider jury nullification
to be a proceedural error...

						  Frank Crary
						  CU Boulder

(By the way, does anyone know how to get a usenet feed at Boulder?
My account is on pprince, which doesn't seem to connect. Remote 
logins to my old Berkeley account are getting to be a pain...)
From: alan@lancaster.nsc.com (The Hepburn)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: A question
Date: 26 Aug 92 15:04:27 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: National Semiconductor Corporation

In article <26915@life.ai.mit.edu>, benjamin@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu (Benjamin Renaud) writes:
|> This is a question to people who know about the interpretation of "a
|> well-regulated militia" in the 2nd amendment.
|> 
|> What does it mean?

Well, here's my stab at interpreting the Amendment:

"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."

My interpretation:

In order to maintain the freedom we enjoy under the Constitution, we must
have a citizenry that is readily able to defend it.  In order to be able to defend  
our freedom, the citizenry must be able to train in the use of the tools by 
which such defence can be accomplished.  The citizenry must be able to keep 
and bear arms so that they may train themselves in the use of those arms.

-- 
Alan Hepburn           "An ignorant person is one who doesn't know
National Semiconductor       what you have just found out."
Santa Clara, Ca              
alan@berlioz.nsc.com                              Will Rogers
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: A question on U.S. Constitution
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 23:39:06 GMT

In article <175s38INNf3@agate.berkeley.edu>, fcrary@ocf.berkeley.edu
(Frank Crary) writes:

> In article <92Aug22.055354edt.177@smoke.cs.toronto.edu>
> quoctp@cs.toronto.edu writes:
> >In the constitution of the U.S., the Fifth Amendment states that
> >no person can be deprived of his/her property without "due process

More correctly:

"...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public
use, without just compensation."

> >of law". Does this mean that a government (federal, state or city)
> >can pass a law, then can deprive someone of his/her property by using that
> >law? (I have gun confiscations in mind).
>
> That is exactly what it means, though the law must also be within

Only if they can likewise deprive someone of their life, or liberty by
mere passage of a law.  I think "due process" here, means "trial by jury".
Unless, of course, they wish to take our firearms for "public use",
and pay the market price for them.

But there's also that little issue of the 2nd Amendment....

> the government's legal powers (gun confications by the federal government
> would take a little work to justify in this regard) and not violate
> any other part of the Constitution (and state Constitution/city charter
> for local laws). Gun confications are a fairly clear and direct violation
> of the Second Amendment, so such a law would be unconstitutional.

Yes.

> _Car_ confication, for example, would be legal.

Probably not.  It would fall under the same problem... "due process";
It applies to "...life, liberty, or property...", so it better consist
of more than passage of a law.

-- 
Charles Scripter   *   cescript@phy.mtu.edu
Dept of Physics, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI 49931
-------------------------------------------------------------------
With your one remaining eye, please do NOT look back into the laser
Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:20533 alt.society.civil-disob:100
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.society.civil-disob
Subject: Re: Black Market guns
Date: 3 Sep 92 20:53:12 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA

In article <1992Sep01.162848.24391@convex.com> tighe@convex.com writes:
>viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>>	Don Baldwin was visiting Iowa this past week, and when I mentioned
>>that rifles and shotguns were sold at K-mart, he didn't believe it.  So I
>>took him to K-mart and showed him.  While I was there, I bought some .30-30
>>ammunition as it will be a few weeks until I can get back to my reloading
>>press.  Guess what?
>
>If Don Baldwin is shocked to see guns being sold in K-Mart (which even NJ
>does), he would really flip if he came to Texas, etc and witnessed a 2000
>table gun show, where just about anything that shoots is available.

Keep in mind that I was pleasantly surprised; I didn't suddenly turn into
a Brady Bill supporter or something! :)

After a very pleasant stay in Iowa (due to Dan and April's friendliness
and hospitality), Gillian and I visited the Boulder/Denver area.  There,
I was even more pleasantly surprised (gun-wise) to find all types of gun
available at Wal-Mart, with no waiting period.  Bear with me folks, I grew
up in NY state and have been in California for 8 years:  I'm not used to
states that trust you!

>>	Ammunition that can be fired in a pistol, when sold, must be
>>recorded along with the buyers name, ssn, address, and the like.
>
>I think this is K-Mart policy. When I lived in NJ years ago, K-marts there
>did this too. It is the only place I know of that does it. Since all other
>other dealers do not, I doubt it is [national] law; why they would risk
>their FFL over something like this? BTW, you can buy ammo mail order since
>1986. Too bad you can't buy a new SMG. Doesn't sound like a fair trade to
>me :-(.

Up until 1986, wasn't there a Federal law requiring that stores record
ammo purchases?  I remember the first few times I took my 586 to the
range, they took info from my driver's license.  Then they stopped doing
so...

Well, so far I know that Iowa and Colorado will make it easier to own
a Colt Python...but what about Burmese Pythons?  Iowa seems to have
reasonable laws regarding giant snakes but I'm not sure about Colorado.

    don
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: RKBA - are you missing the point?
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 23:25:44 GMT

In article <5999@transfer.stratus.com>, cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:

> In article <1992Aug28.183032.16955@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com
> (Mr. X) writes:
> > 	On paper, yes, but I'm not so sure that your stomping into court and
> > 	informing the jury of their right to nullify a law that they find
> > 	disagreeable would not land you in the slammer on some horse shit
> > 	charge like contempt or what have you and perhaps find you with a
> > 	mis-trial in your lap.
> 
> [...]
> 
> If YOU are on a jury, you have the right to inform the other jurors of
> the principle of jury nullification; however, it is not recommended that 
> you do this as a FIRST resort.  Certainly, if you hear a majority of the
> jurors expressing opinions on the order of, "Gee, this really seems unfair,
> but I guess we have to convict him," it's time to carefully play the card.

The big key is to do it discretely.  You don't tell the Judge that
you decided to nullify a law, you just do it.  Informing him might well
be sufficient grounds for a mis-trial.  Don't give him the opportunity.

-- 
Charles Scripter   *   cescript@phy.mtu.edu
Dept of Physics, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI 49931
-------------------------------------------------------------------
With your one remaining eye, please do NOT look back into the laser
From: osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Denver Police Kill Another Un-Armed Person, Today!
Date: 2 Sep 92 22:40:56 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Twilight Zone

In article <1992Sep1.190627.14492@stortek.com> vojak@icebucket.stortek.com (Bill Vojak) writes:
>Just heard this on the news while at lunch today:
>
>The "suspect" was declared dead at the scene.  He was NOT ARMED
>in any manner, though the talking heads were pointing out that
>"he did have a shirt in his hand which the police officer might
>have mistook for a weapon". [Sure, I have plenty of shirts that
>look like Glock 19s].  

	Hmmm... most disturbing.  I believe it is our constitutional
	OBLIGATION to write our Congress persons and DEMAND that a
	law be passed to ban all forms of assault T-shirt.  Can you
	even *imagine* the terror of that poor poor officer as that
	nasty *black* person turned and trained his assault shirt on
	him?  He's lucky just to be alive, by God!

>The victim was a student at Regis University,
>and had NO CRIMINAL RECORD.  At this time it is not even know if
>he was involved in the original disturbance.  [although this
>is likely].  The officer involved was a rookie.

	Yes, but the [now] dead person was a NIGGER and we all know
	that niggers are inherent criminals and should all be killed
	anyway, so the officer has done all of us a great favor by
	reducing the ranks of violent welfare scrounging porch monkeys
	by one.  I think he should be given the keys to the city.
	As for the absence of criminal record, well that's easy: he just
	had not yet been caught.  There are a few niggers out there that
	can almost think.  Scary, eh?
>
>I guess in Denver they do just take you out into the alley
>and shoot you through the head.

	God damned right, if you're a fuckin' nigger, that is.
>
	

	Now I hope I don't have to tell anyone reading this that this is 
	nothing more than my bitter sarcasm expressing itself.  What I
	would seriously like to know is where is this shit going to end?
	This story and all the others like it are so furiously repulsive
	that I can't describe it in words.  That Americans have gotten so
	damned complacent that they would stand for this kind of shit is
	beyond my comprehension.  If this crap happened in my town, I'd
	be looking for blood.  Fortunately for me, nothing *ever* happens
	in Freehold :).

	As senseless as the violence was in LA and Washington Heights, the
	one thing I can say that was positive in it was that at least
	people actually got their fat asses out of the La-Z-Boy and DID
	something.  Unfortunately it was the wrong form of action.  The
	principle of intertia really seems to be immutable.

	In revulsion,
	
	-Andy V.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Washington state legislator's voting records
Date: 23 Aug 92 16:26:59 GMT
Organization: Totally Unorganized

In article <1992Aug15.021932.22704@athena.mit.edu> sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman) writes:
<In article <1992Aug14.233946.14928@microsoft.com> alane@microsoft.com (Alan Ezekiel) writes:
<>For those registered to vote in the state of Washington:
<>HB 2537 was a standard "school zone" bill, which would have
<>prevented CWP holders from carrying in the vicinity of a school.
<>(Trivia question: how many schoolchildren have been unjustifiably
<>shot on school grounds by holders of valid CWPs in the last twenty
<>years?  Oh well, glad to see the House is working hard to solve
<>this "problem".)
<
<What kind of moron would have supported such a bill?  

One who is certified as properly 'Progressive'.

<Gummit = stupidity in motion

-- 
pat@rwing.uucp                                  (Pat Myrto),  Seattle, WA
                      If all else fails, try:
         ...!uunet!{pilchuck, polari}!rwing!pat
WISDOM:    "Travelling unarmed is like boating without a life jacket" 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns