From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 04:00:19 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.001404.16988@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>Unfortunately for you, you don't understand that what Fletcher did was
>>to set down how terms were understood in the period (much closer to the
>>writing of the Constitution than we are today).  

>Why should I accept Fletcher as an authority on the meaning of the words,
>Russ, any more than any other scholar? What's so special about him?

If we are at all concerned about historical fact, we want a scholar
of the mid-eighteenth century, who was part of the same "liberal"
political movement that influenced the framers of the Constitution.

Fletcher fits this description, as do a number of other writers. Feel
free to look up any of their writings: They were not in disagreement
with this use of "militia."

>In fact, why should I even CONSULT Fletcher's works, when the meaning of
>the Amendment is crystal clear (to me, at least), and doesn't require any 
>necrotelepathy at all to "disambiguate" it?

I also find the meaning clear, but my interpertation is very different
from yours (nor am I alone in this view). Therefore, both sides 
need to make some effort to justify their interpertation. I've seen
alot of posts backing up an individual rights interpertation, but I
haven't much for the state-militia-only reading.

>Yes, it is the law of the land. Both clauses. Until the first clause is
>specifically repealed, it HAS to have meaning. The NRA interpretation 
>would rob it all useful meaning, and is therefore an implicit repeal.

I don't know about the NRA, but reading the second clause as a 
protection of individual rights in no way weakens the first clause:
An organized and trained (well regulated) armed population (militia)
is necessary to the security of a free state.

Clearly such a militia can not exist if the people are unarmed, so
their right to keep and bear arms is protected from government
infringement.

By the way, since the first clause _is_ a constitutionally mandated
necessity, Congress _should_ spend more time, effort and money on 
training civilians in the use of firearms.

>>As a matter of fact, elsewhere in the Constitution, Congress is
>>given the power of arming and disciplining (training) the militia.

>Good point, although if you're referring to Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 
>16, that reads as giving the Congress the power to _prescribe_ training 
>methods, but leaves the States the actual authority to _administer_ the
>training. Slight distinction there.

Which also destroys the idea of the Second Amendment as a protection
of state militias: They are clearly _not_ free from federal infringment.

>The Article I stuff is rather moot anyway, since the 2nd Amendment can
>override its provisions, if that is the only reasonable interpretation 
>possible. 

Since Madison, the _author_ of the Second Amendment, specifically said
that no part of the Bill of Rights altered the unamended Constitution, 
such an interpertation would be inaccurate. Further, the Militia Act
of 1792 used the Artical One authority over the militia one year
_after_ the Second Amendment was ratified: Again showing that the
Second Amendment does not alter the Article Oner militia powers.

>Personally, I read the 2nd as permitting "citizen militias" not 
>under the direct control of any governmental subdivision. However, I still 
>see two irreducible requirements:
>	A) That the militia be "well-regulated"

Defined how? If the government is free to define this as it likes, 
then the Amendment would provide no protection. If you would define
"well-regulated" based on previous militia laws (state laws of the
early Republic, the Militia Act of 1792, etc), then any modern gun
club is a "well regulated militia."

>	B) That it be necessary for the security of a free state

No, the clause in the Consitutuion is,

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State..."

This is a declaration that well regulated militias are necessary 
(and presumably the government has a responsibility to insure their
existance.) "Necessary to the security of a free state" is the
object of the clause, not another adjectival phrase modifying the
meaning of "Militia."

Your second condition is, by constitutional declaration, always true.
(E.g. Well regulated militias are inherently necessary to the security
of a free state.)

                                                    Frank Crary
                                                    CU Boulder