From: mgelman@cyclades.ma30.bull.com (Michael A. Gelman)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Bearing arms: our first line of defense
Date: 27 Aug 92 20:02:20 GMT
Reply-To: mgelman@cyclades.ma30.bull.com (Michael A. Gelman)
Organization: Bull HN Info Sys, Billerica MA

In article <0105011F.c4rsay@dragon.enigami.mv.com>, cory@enigami.mv.com (Cory Kempf) writes:
|> 
|> In article <1992Aug24.215545.25462@mips2.ma30.bull.com> (ne.politics), mgelman@cyclades.ma30.bull.com (Michael A. Gelman) writes:
|> >|> Here is the text for reference: 
|> >|>     "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."
|> 
|> >While I'm sure a linguistic analysis would be interesting, it is
|> >analysis done by the *lawyers* that is relevent.  
|> 
|> Were the framers of the constitution members of the American Bar Association?
|> Or were they common men? 

I'd consider them extraordinary men, actually.

|> Just because someone has been admited by
|> the bar association to practice law does not give them the right to
|> rewrite the constitution.  Which is why the jury system exists.  ANY
|> jury (which is made up of common men, *NOT* lawyers) has the right
|> to try the *LAW* was well as the accused.  Should they find that a
|> law is invalid, *THAT LAW IS ELIMINATED*  (for some reason though,
|> the legislature and the judiciary try to hide this fact).

It is my understanding (although I haven't checked) that this
statement about juries is incorrect.  A jury is only involved at the
"trial of the facts."  ( I may have this term incorrect, but I hope
this gives the idea) Questions regarding the law are handled at the
appeals level, which does not have a jury.  A jury does not have the
power to overturn laws, appeals courts do.  (Think about this: this
gives 12 random (unelected) people veto power over the legislature.
No overturn, no accountablilty.  You want that?  I don't.)

The only things that gives lawyers any "uncommon"ness is their
training.  I don't have that (although I feel I'm aquainted with law
and legal reasoning), and I would guess from your comments neither do
you.  

|> >Just because it says
|> >there in black and white that the right can't be infringed, doesn't
|> >mean that it can't be controlled.
|> 
|> Has someone changed the english language in the past year or so? 
|> Last time I looked (30 seconds ago), the OED defined "infringe" as: 

	[Definition deleted]

|> It would seem to me that any attempt to limit the right of the people
|> to keep and bear arms ("control") would be an infringement under most
|> of the above definitions.  

Legal definitions do not equal dictionary definitions.  Which is
exactly my point: The 200 years of courts working on the constitution
have altered the interpretation of "infringment."  Just as Free Speech
can be abridged for certain reasons, so can the right to bear arms.

There is a thing called "legal reasoning."  It involves some logic,
some history, some bureaucracy, some precedents, and (surprisingly)
some compassion.  The result is frequently not what one would expect.
Legal training gives one a feel for it.  Trying to figure things out
from first principles is simple not valid.

There are two issues here: "Is all gun control unconstitutional?" and "Is
it a good idea?"  In the latter, we can agree to disagree and fight it
out in the legistature.  In the former, we can look to the Supreme
Court, and see what it has said.  Convicted felons cannot own guns,
therefore some controls are constitutional.

Now, if you said that gun control is the complete banning of all
firearms from all private citizens, then I'd agree that goes too far.
Is it reasonable concern of safety, since there are some (a minority,
I'll admit) who cannot handle the responsibility of guns?  I'd say
that's an appropriate policy.

|> >And, finally, regarding your quotes from the framers, I agree that it
|> >is important to understand why the constitution says what it says, and
|> >what they meant.  But...The world has changed.  Original intent is the
|> >place to start, but not the place to end.
|> 
|> Has it really?  There are still governments.  They still try to run
|> people's lifes.  They still try to enslave free men.  They still use
|> force to take property from its rightful owners.  And, as can be seen
|> is any newspaper today, the people's right to overthrow a tyranical
|> government is still needed and used.  There is still crime.  The police
|> still have no responsibility to protect citizens.  I don't see any 
|> fundimental changes between now and europe of the 18th century.

Sounds like you're against *any* government intervention in private
life.  OK, again, we disagree.  But I don't think that we need to
overthrow the USA.  And it *is* the responsibilty of the police to
protect citzens.  

|> In the final analysis, in a free society, governments only exists with 
|> the consent of the people being ruled.  Eliminating / reducing
|> the rights to keep and bear arms is an attempt remove the right of
|> the people to withhold that consent.  Think about it.

I have, and I disagree.  Reducing the right to bear arms is an
appropriate response to needless slaughter and waste of human life.

There are a lot of issues floating around here under the guise of "gun
control":  The role of government, the future of society, the
constitution, the judicial system, effectiveness of the police, etc.
Sometimes they mix, and it's very hard to come to any agreement over
anything when that happens.

--Mike Gelman
-- 
Michael Gelman -- M.Gelman@ma30.bull.com 
Bull HN Info Systems -- Advanced Engineering Program 
(Any similarity between my opinions and those of Bull, living or dead, are
entirely coincidental.)