From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 05:22:37 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.014457.17582@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>Do you understand the difference between "shall not be infringed" (strong
>statement) and "shall not be subjected to excessive government regulation"
>(weak, wishy-washy statement)? I can think of numerous ways short of TOTAL
>non-infringement in which the states could easily nurture citizen militias 
>into existence.

The Second Amendment was enacted out of a concern, that the government
would neglect its responsibility to "nurture" militias. There is a
serious problem with any interpertation that makes militias dependent
on such government action.

>Do you have
>evidence that states are deliberately blocking the rise of citizen militias?

Many states (California comes to mind, as an example) have laws agaisnt
"paramilitary organizations." By the definitions of the California law,
any citizen militia would be illegal.

>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.

No, they simply see no immediate, pressing need. That is very different
from saying there will never be a need, or laws restricting or prohibiting
the militia are acceptable. Since the people will only join militias
(in great numbers) when they see an immediate need, then the 
best was to provide for the militia would be to assure rapid and
easy creation of militias, when needed. Perhaps by insuring that people can
own arms train with arms (for such trivial purposes as hunting or target
shooting.) That way, there would exist a pool of experienced people who could
rapidly from into militas during a crisis. Perhaps we should have
a Constitutional Amendment to this effect:

"A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free
state; to assure the existance of such a militia, the right of
the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Of course, some House of Representatives committee is bound to edit
it down (if only to prove they exist) to something like:

"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
in infringed."

>>If you don't like Dred Scott, try United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 
>I will also point out that, like _Dred Scott_, the primary focus of this case 
>was something OTHER than an interpretation of the 2nd Amendment RKBA, and 
>thus the reference to the 2nd Amendment could be considered mere _dicta_ and 
>not furnishing any useful precedent whatsoever. 

So what do you make of Presser v. Illinois (which was a case directly
focusing on the Second Amendment):

"It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms
constitute the reserve military force or reserve militia of the United
States as well as of the States, and, in view of this prerogative of the
general government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot,
even laying [the Second Amendment] out of view, prohibit the people 
from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of
their rightful resource..."

                                                   Frank Crary
                                                   CU Boulder

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion