From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Second Amendment Arguement
Date: 17 Dec 92 17:33:30 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1050088@hprnd.rose.hp.com>, k@hprnd.rose.hp.com (Steve Kao) writes:
> Colby Beck:
> > Since
> > Article  I sec. 8 gives Congress  the power to arm the  Militia, Congress
> > could then enact strict gun-control legislation and only allow weapons
> > which would be used only during Militia training.
> 
> Article I, section 8 gives Congress the power to arm the militia.
> Amendment 2 recognizes the right of the people to arm themselves.
> Nothing in the Constitution gives Congress the right to disarm the
> people.
> 
> Therefore, Congress could mandate that every citizen be issued a firearm
> and demonstrate a minimum level of ability with said firearm, but
> Congress doesn't have the power to take away other firearms citizens may
> already possess.
> 
> - Steve Kao

It's also worth considering that the First Congress, who passed the
Second Amendment, were very nervous about any program that might be
misconstrued as disarming the people, even under the pretext that
Mr. Beck suggests.  From my upcoming book (being bound as we speak):

              On the same day, a long discussion by members of the House
            centered on  whether the  government should provide arms for
            those too  poor to  purchase their  own.  Rep. .i.Wadsworth,
            Rep.; and  Sherman argued against such an action, because of
            the public  expense involved,  and  "experience  shows  that
            public property  of this  kind, from  the careless manner in
            which many  persons use  it, is  soon lost."   Further, Rep.
            Sherman felt  sure that,  "there are  so few  freemen in the
            United States  who are  not able  to provide themselves with
            arms  and   accoutrements,"  that  it  was  unnecessary  and
            improper for  the government  to do  so.    Rep.  Bloodworth
            argued that  since the  whole society  benefited from arming
            the poorest members of the .i.militia;, that "those who were
            benefited by  them  should  be  at  the  expense  of  arming
            them."45

              When it  was suggested  that minors and apprentices should
            be armed  at the  public expense  as  well,  Rep.  Wadsworth
            argued   against    it   on    grounds   that   would   seem
            incomprehensible to most people today:

              The motion  at first  appeared to  be in  favor of poor
              men, who  are unable  to purchase  a .i.firelock;;  but
              now,  it  seems,  minors  and  apprentices  are  to  be
              provided for.   Is  there a man in this House who would
              wish to  see so  large a  proportion of  the community,
              perhaps one-third,  armed by  the  United  States,  and
              liable to be disarmed by them?  Nothing would tend more
              to ex[c]ite  suspicion, and  rouse a jealousy dangerous
              to the  Union.   With respect to apprentices, every man
              knew that  they were  liable to  the tax, and they were
              taken under  the idea  of being  provided for  by their
              masters; as to minors, their parents or guardians would
              prefer  furnishing   them  with   arms  themselves,  to
              depending on the United States when they knew they were
              liable to having them reclaimed.46  [emphasis added]

            Congress' fear  was not that the population would have arms;
            but that  if the government provided the arms, it would have
            the authority  to ask  for them  back, and doing so would be
            dangerous to the Union.
            ____________________
              44 Annals of Congress, 1 Cong., December 16, 1790, 1806.
              45 Annals of Congress, 1 Cong., December 16, 1790, 1806-
            1808.
              46 Annals of Congress, 1 Cong., December 16, 1790, 1809.


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
C++ is to C, as lung cancer is to lung.
Newsgroups: misc.legal