On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 07:57:45 -0600, nick hull wrote:

In article ,
"Hawke" wrote:

When you hear what the side advocating for the amendment not being an
individual right it makes you wonder how they got even six states to go for
it.

What are the 6 states that deny the 2nd is an individual right?

Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/


http://www.saf.org/Constitutions.html#WithOut




The U.S. Constitution and 44 States have Constitutional provisions
enumerating the Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

U.S. Constitution, Amendment II
(also known as the Second 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.

One Comma or Three?

The Final (ratified) version had only one comma according to the
Library of Congress and Government Printing Office.

Gov. Page 1


Gov. Image 1


Image 2


Gov. image 3

Please E-mail the web address of the one-comma version HERE.
Thanks to D.C. Bennison for locating the first two pages!

Madison's Proposed version may have included three commas,

Gov. Image 1





Gov. Image 2

Either way, it is an individual right based on the original intent and
textual analysis.

1. States With Right To Bear Arms Provisions In Alphabetical Order,
CLICK HE

2. States Without Specific Constitutional Provisions, CLICK HE


States With Right To Bear Arms Provisions In Alphabetical Order:


Alabama Constitution Article I, Section 26

That the great, general and essential principles of liberty and free
government may be recognized and established, we declare... That every
citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.


Alaska Constitution Article I, Section 19

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. The individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be
denied or infringed by the State or a political subdivision of the
State.


Arizona Constitution, Article 2, Section 26

The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself
or the State shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall
be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize,
maintain, or employ an armed body of men.


Arkansas Constitution Article II, Section 5

The citizens of this State shall have the right to keep and bear arms
for their common defense.


Colorado Constitution Article II, Section 13

The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home,
person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally
summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained
shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed
weapons.


Connecticut Constitution Article I, Section 15

Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the
state.


Delaware Constitution Article I, Section 20

A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self,
family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use.


Florida Constitution Article I, Section 8(a)

The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves
and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed,
except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law.

Georgia Constitution Article I, Section 1, Paragraph VIII.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,
but the General Assembly shall have power to prescribe the manner in
which arms may be borne.

Hawaii Constitution Article I, Section 17

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.


Idaho Constitution Article I, Section 11

The people have the right to keep and bear arms, which right shall not
be abridged; but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws
to govern the carrying of weapons concealed on the person nor prevent
passage of legislation providing minimum sentences for crimes
committed while in possession of a firearm, nor prevent the passage of
legislation providing penalties for the possession of firearms by a
convicted felon, nor prevent the passage of any legislation punishing
the use of a firearm. No law shall impose licensure, registration or
special taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms or
ammunition. Nor shall any law permit the confiscation of firearms,
except those actually used in the commission of a felony.


Illinois Constitution Article I, Section 22

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen
to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


Indiana Constitution Article I, Section 32

The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of
themselves and the State.


Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights 4

The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security;
but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and
shall not be tolerated, and the military shall be in strict
subordination to the civil power.


Kentucky Constitution Section 1

All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inherent and
inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned: ... Seventh: The
right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject
to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons
from carrying concealed weapons.


Louisiana Constitution Article I, Section 11

The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged,
but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit
the carrying of weapons concealed on the person.


Maine Constitution Article 1, Section 16

Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall
never be questioned.


Massachusetts Constitution Part The First, Article XVII

The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common
defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty,
they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the
legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact
subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.


Michigan Constitution Article I, Section 6

Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of
himself and the state.


Mississippi Constitution Article III, Section 12

The right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his
home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto
legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but the legislature
may regulate or forbid carrying concealed weapons.


Missouri Constitution Article I, Section 23

That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of
his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the
civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the
wearing of concealed weapons.


Montana Constitution Article II, Section 12

The right of any person to keep or bear arms in defense of his own
home, person, and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto
legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but nothing herein
contained shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons.

Montana Constitution Article VI, Section 13(2)

The militia forces shall consist of all able-bodied citizens of
the state except those exempted by law.


Nebraska Constitution Article I, Section 1

All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain
inherent and inalienable rights; among these are life, liberty, the
pursuit of happiness, and the right to keep and bear arms for security
or defense of self, family, home, and others, and for lawful common
defense, hunting, recreational use, and all other lawful purposes, and
such rights shall not be denied or infringed by the state or any
subdivision thereof. To secure these rights, and the protection of
property, governments are instituted among people, deriving their just
powers from the consent of the governed.


Nevada Constitution Article 1, Section 11, [1.]

Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and
defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful
purposes.


New Hampshire Constitution Part First, Article 2-a

All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of
themselves, their families, their property and the state.

New Hampshire Constitution Part First, Article 13

No person, who is conscientiously scrupulous about the lawfulness
of bearing arms, shall be compelled thereto.


New Mexico Constitution Article II, Section 6

No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms
for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and
for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit
the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall
regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms.


North Carolina Constitution Article I, Section 30

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; and, as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to
liberty. they shall not be maintained, and the military shall be kept
under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
Nothing herein shall justify the practice of carrying concealed
weapons, or prevent the General Assembly from enacting penal statutes
against that practice.


North Dakota Constitution Article I, Section 1

All individuals are by nature equally free and independent and have
certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and
defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting
property and reputation; pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness;
and to keep and bear arms for the defense of their person, family,
property, and the state, and for lawful hunting, recreational and
other lawful purposes, which shall not be infringed.


Ohio Constitution Article I, Section 4

The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security;
but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and
shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict
subordination to the civil power.

Ohio Constitution Article I, Section 1

All men are, by nature, free and independent, and have certain
inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending
life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and
seeking and obtaining happiness and safety.

Oklahoma Constitution Article II, Section 26

The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home,
person, or property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereunto
legally summoned, shall never be prohibited; but nothing herein
contained shall prevent the Legislature from regulating the carrying
of weapons.


Oregon Constitution Article I, Section 27

The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence of
themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict
subordination to the civil power[.]


Pennsylvania Constitution Article I, Section 21

The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and
the State shall not be questioned.


Rhode Island Constitution Article I, Section 22

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


South Carolina Constitution Article I, Section 20

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. As, in times of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty,
they shall not be maintained without the consent of the General
Assembly. The military power of the State shall always be held in
subordination to the civil authority and be governed by it. No soldier
shall in time of peace be quartered in any house without the consent
of the owner nor in time of war but in the manner prescribed by law.


South Dakota Constitution Article VI, Section 24

The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and
the state shall not be denied.


Tennessee Constitution Article I, Section 26

That the citizens of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms
for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by
law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime.


Texas Constitution Article I, Section 23

Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful
defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power,
by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.


Utah Constitution Article I, Section 6

The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for security
and defense of self, family, others, property, or the state, as well
as for other lawful purposes shall not be infringed; but nothing
herein shall prevent the Legislature from defining the lawful use of
arms.


Vermont Constitution Chapter 1, Article 16

That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of
themselves and the State - and as standing armies in time of peace are
dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the
military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by
the civil power.


Virginia Constitution Article I, Section 13

That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people,
trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free
state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall
not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be
avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military
should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil
power.


Washington Constitution Article I, Section 24

The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of
himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this
section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations
to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.


West Virginia Constitution Article III, Section 22

A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self,
family, home and state, and for lawful hunting and recreational use.


Wisconsin Constitution Article I, Section 25

The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense,
hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.


Wyoming Constitution Article I, Section 24

The right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the
state shall not be denied.



States Without Specific Constitutional Provisions:

Only six states fail to enumerate a Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Clause. Of these states, Iowa and New Jersey have a general "defending
life and liberty" clause for self-protection.


California: Nothing.

However, the California Constitution provides for "inalienable rights"
including "defending life and liberty ... and protecting property..."
Article I, Section 1 reads:

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable
rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty,
acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and
obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

Furthermore, once the Second Amendment is properly defined as an
individual right (hopefully in the Emerson Case), then Article III,
Section 1 of the California Constitution would apply the Second
Amendment to the State Laws of California. Article III, Section 1
reads:

The State of California is an inseparable part of the United
States of America, and the United States Constitution is the supreme
law of the land.


Iowa Constitution Article I, Section 1Iowa Constitution Article I,
Section 1

All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inalienable
rights - among which are those of enjoying and defending life and
liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing
and obtaining safety and happiness.


Maryland: Nothing


Minnesota: Nothing


New Jersey Constitution Article I, [1.]

All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain
natural and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and
defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing, and protecting
property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.


New York: Nothing specific, however Article XII, Section 1 of the
Constitution covers both the "organized" and "unorganized" militia and
reads:

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States
is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature
shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the
maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

Article 2, Section 4 of the New York Civil Rights Law also reads
almost identical to the Second Amendment:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free
state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be
infringed.



Gunner



"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
The states' brief for the respondent (the one in favor of the individual
right) has been filed. 31 states joined in it. It's available he


http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-cont...icus_texas.pdf

The states that oppose the individual rights (6 states joined it) had
already filed a brief, available he


http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-cont...cus_states.pdf

Again, the overwhelming number of organizations, states, and so on are
filing on behalf of the individual right:


When you hear what the side advocating for the amendment not being an
individual right it makes you wonder how they got even six states to go for
it. The legal and historical evidence is all on the side of it being an
individual right so you really have to do some intellectual contortions to
take the other side. It's beginning to look like the individual right
position is finally going to be accepted in the law. It's about time. It's
been well known for decades that the position that the amendment only
referred to militias was completely bogus. But then there are so many things
just like that in this country it isn't even funny.

Hawke

"Hawke" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
The states' brief for the respondent (the one in favor of the individual
right) has been filed. 31 states joined in it. It's available he


http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-cont...icus_texas.pdf

The states that oppose the individual rights (6 states joined it) had
already filed a brief, available he


http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-cont...cus_states.pdf

Again, the overwhelming number of organizations, states, and so on are
filing on behalf of the individual right:


When you hear what the side advocating for the amendment not being an
individual right it makes you wonder how they got even six states to go
for
it. The legal and historical evidence is all on the side of it being an
individual right so you really have to do some intellectual contortions to
take the other side.

No, it's not. Most of the legal "evidence" is on the side of it being a
collective right. The historical "evidence" tells us that the FFs generally
believed in an individual right. It does NOT tell you that they were
addressing that issue with the 2nd. In fact, the case is stronger that the
2nd was all about militias.

The question is whether the presumption on which the 2nd is based included
an individual right -- a pre-existing right that precedes the Constitution.
That's the main battleground in the Heller case.

It's beginning to look like the individual right
position is finally going to be accepted in the law.

Maybe. It's still a tossup. The Supreme Court will have to reach into the
"penumbras and emanations" to find for the individual right. That's the
approach that conservative jurists have scoffed at for four or five decades
now. If they reach into that Pandora's box to find for an individual right,
they'll have a hell of a time ever overturning Roe v. Wade, for example,
because that's what the Roe decision was based on, too.

It's not a simple situation. From all angles, this one is very complex, with
numerous potential unintended consequences.

It's about time. It's
been well known for decades that the position that the amendment only
referred to militias was completely bogus.

Nonsense. No one "knows" it to this day.

Read the petitioner's brief, Hawke. Then read a couple of the amici for the
petitioner. Those are the arguments on which most federal precedent
concerning the 2nd are based.

--
Ed Huntress

In article ,
"Hawke" wrote:

When you hear what the side advocating for the amendment not being an
individual right it makes you wonder how they got even six states to go for
it.

What are the 6 states that deny the 2nd is an individual right?

Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-cont...icus_texas.pdf

The states that oppose the individual rights (6 states joined it) had
already filed a brief, available he



http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-cont...cus_states.pdf

Again, the overwhelming number of organizations, states, and so on are
filing on behalf of the individual right:


When you hear what the side advocating for the amendment not being an
individual right it makes you wonder how they got even six states to go
for
it. The legal and historical evidence is all on the side of it being an
individual right so you really have to do some intellectual contortions
to
take the other side.

No, it's not. Most of the legal "evidence" is on the side of it being a
collective right. The historical "evidence" tells us that the FFs
generally
believed in an individual right. It does NOT tell you that they were
addressing that issue with the 2nd. In fact, the case is stronger that the
2nd was all about militias.

The question is whether the presumption on which the 2nd is based included
an individual right -- a pre-existing right that precedes the
Constitution.
That's the main battleground in the Heller case.

It's beginning to look like the individual right
position is finally going to be accepted in the law.

Maybe. It's still a tossup. The Supreme Court will have to reach into the
"penumbras and emanations" to find for the individual right. That's the
approach that conservative jurists have scoffed at for four or five
decades
now. If they reach into that Pandora's box to find for an individual
right,
they'll have a hell of a time ever overturning Roe v. Wade, for example,
because that's what the Roe decision was based on, too.

It's not a simple situation. From all angles, this one is very complex,
with
numerous potential unintended consequences.

It's about time. It's
been well known for decades that the position that the amendment only
referred to militias was completely bogus.

Nonsense. No one "knows" it to this day.

Read the petitioner's brief, Hawke. Then read a couple of the amici for
the
petitioner. Those are the arguments on which most federal precedent
concerning the 2nd are based.

--
Ed Huntress

Once again I'm saying that notwithstanding legal arguments this is
ultimately a simple case. Does a right exist or not. Virtually all the
beliefs held by ordinary Americans for most of the country's history were
the same. The reason for the second amendment and the meaning of it were not
contested. It meant the people had the right to be armed and the state was
prohibited by the constitution, of all things, from taking them away without
a damned good reason. I'm sure if you asked Teddy Roosevelt if the 2nd
amendment gave the citizen the right to arms and not solely militias he
would have given you a resounding affirmation. It is only in modern times
that the idea that the amendment was all about militias, when
coincidentally, by then they were a thing of the past. But this question
isn't a new one or exclusively and American one. In Machiavelli's "Prince"
he discusses an armed populace and a disarmed one. The question has been
around for centuries and when the signers of the constitution wrote the 2nd
amendment there was no doubt in their minds what they intended. To
specifically prevent the government from disarming the ordinary citizen
whether for his own good, or to impose a tyranny. Either way the meaning was
crystal clear and only today is there any question about what it was meant
to do. Legal arguing is a completely different kettle of fish and is mainly
superfluous.

Hawke

"Hawke" wrote in message
...



http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-cont...icus_texas.pdf

The states that oppose the individual rights (6 states joined it) had
already filed a brief, available he



http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-cont...cus_states.pdf

Again, the overwhelming number of organizations, states, and so on are
filing on behalf of the individual right:


When you hear what the side advocating for the amendment not being an
individual right it makes you wonder how they got even six states to go
for
it. The legal and historical evidence is all on the side of it being an
individual right so you really have to do some intellectual contortions
to
take the other side.

No, it's not. Most of the legal "evidence" is on the side of it being a
collective right. The historical "evidence" tells us that the FFs
generally
believed in an individual right. It does NOT tell you that they were
addressing that issue with the 2nd. In fact, the case is stronger that
the
2nd was all about militias.

The question is whether the presumption on which the 2nd is based
included
an individual right -- a pre-existing right that precedes the
Constitution.
That's the main battleground in the Heller case.

It's beginning to look like the individual right
position is finally going to be accepted in the law.

Maybe. It's still a tossup. The Supreme Court will have to reach into the
"penumbras and emanations" to find for the individual right. That's the
approach that conservative jurists have scoffed at for four or five
decades
now. If they reach into that Pandora's box to find for an individual
right,
they'll have a hell of a time ever overturning Roe v. Wade, for example,
because that's what the Roe decision was based on, too.

It's not a simple situation. From all angles, this one is very complex,
with
numerous potential unintended consequences.

It's about time. It's
been well known for decades that the position that the amendment only
referred to militias was completely bogus.

Nonsense. No one "knows" it to this day.

Read the petitioner's brief, Hawke. Then read a couple of the amici for
the
petitioner. Those are the arguments on which most federal precedent
concerning the 2nd are based.

--
Ed Huntress

Once again I'm saying that notwithstanding legal arguments this is
ultimately a simple case. Does a right exist or not. Virtually all the
beliefs held by ordinary Americans for most of the country's history were
the same. The reason for the second amendment and the meaning of it were
not
contested. It meant the people had the right to be armed and the state was
prohibited by the constitution, of all things, from taking them away
without
a damned good reason.

I have no patience for an extended discussion about this now, but I'll hit
the high points. First, on this one: you have it sort of upside-down. The
2nd was a specific response to the anti-federalists who had expressed a fear
that the federal government, under Article I, section 8, would preclude the
states from arming their own militias and would therefore nationalize the
militia itself, or, worse, establish a standing, federal army. It was this
fear that the 2nd specifically addresses.

Now, does it include a presumption of a pre-existing individual right?
That's one of the arguable points. If you check the original debates in
Congress over the Bill of Rights, you'll find NO MENTION whatever of any
other purpose for the 2nd Amendment except the right of the states to arm
and maintain their own militias.

As for the wording of the various state constitutions and the
recommendations that were submitted to Congress for inclusion in the Bill of
Rights, note that those other things were REJECTED and EXCLUDED from the
final draft, the one that was ratified and the text of which now makes up
the 2nd Amendment.

That's a problem. And that's what the last few decades of academic study and
legal theorizing are trying to overcome, with this specific Supreme Court
case.

I'm sure if you asked Teddy Roosevelt if the 2nd
amendment gave the citizen the right to arms and not solely militias he
would have given you a resounding affirmation.

Teddy Roosevelt was not one of the founding fathers, anymore than Bill
Clinton was. d8-)

It is only in modern times
that the idea that the amendment was all about militias, when
coincidentally, by then they were a thing of the past.

Take a look at the citations in the petitioner's brief. You'll find that
your position on this, too is incorrect.

But this question
isn't a new one or exclusively and American one. In Machiavelli's "Prince"
he discusses an armed populace and a disarmed one.

Machiavelli didn't get to vote on ratification of the Bill of Rights. d8-)

The question has been
around for centuries and when the signers of the constitution wrote the
2nd
amendment there was no doubt in their minds what they intended.

From the history, there is little doubt that the founders believed in an
individual right. Whether they incorporated that belief in the 2nd
Amendment, or if it actually is what it appears to be from the historical
record, which is a response to the demand by the anti-federalists for
protection against federal assumption of militia powers, has dozens of
historians and constitutional scholars at loggerheads, as we speak.

To
specifically prevent the government from disarming the ordinary citizen
whether for his own good, or to impose a tyranny. Either way the meaning
was
crystal clear and only today is there any question about what it was meant
to do. Legal arguing is a completely different kettle of fish and is
mainly
superfluous.

You're still a good 500 pages behind where you need to be to understand the
nature of the argument. This isn't a college history quiz, it's a complex
legal issue.

--
Ed Huntress

"nick hull" wrote in message
.. .
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

The question is whether the presumption on which the 2nd is based
included
an individual right -- a pre-existing right that precedes the
Constitution.

There are those who BELIEVE the RKBA is an individual right, and will
ultimately fight for that belief by any means necessary. In the end,
the only rights we have are those that we fight for.

And if you win, are you prepared to agree that Roe v. Wade is equally good
jurisprudence?

--
Ed Huntress

In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

The question is whether the presumption on which the 2nd is based included
an individual right -- a pre-existing right that precedes the Constitution.

There are those who BELIEVE the RKBA is an individual right, and will
ultimately fight for that belief by any means necessary. In the end,
the only rights we have are those that we fight for.

Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/

"nick hull" wrote in message
.. .
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"nick hull" wrote in message
.. .
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

The question is whether the presumption on which the 2nd is based
included
an individual right -- a pre-existing right that precedes the
Constitution.

There are those who BELIEVE the RKBA is an individual right, and will
ultimately fight for that belief by any means necessary. In the end,
the only rights we have are those that we fight for.

And if you win, are you prepared to agree that Roe v. Wade is equally
good
jurisprudence?

Wether you like abortion or not, Rove v. Wade was based on perjured
testimony.

sigh So what does that have to do with the Supreme Court decision? Perjury
is for the lower courts to deal with.

So I'll ask again, if you're willing to reach into the surrounding history
of the 2nd to support an individual right, are you equally willing to
support the similar jurisprudence of Roe v. Wade?

--
Ed Hountress

In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"nick hull" wrote in message
.. .
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

The question is whether the presumption on which the 2nd is based
included
an individual right -- a pre-existing right that precedes the
Constitution.

There are those who BELIEVE the RKBA is an individual right, and will
ultimately fight for that belief by any means necessary. In the end,
the only rights we have are those that we fight for.

And if you win, are you prepared to agree that Roe v. Wade is equally good
jurisprudence?

Wether you like abortion or not, Rove v. Wade was based on perjured
testimony.

Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Now, does it include a presumption of a pre-existing individual right?
That's one of the arguable points. If you check the original debates in
Congress over the Bill of Rights, you'll find NO MENTION whatever of any
other purpose for the 2nd Amendment except the right of the states to arm
and maintain their own militias.

One must consider that the right to bear arms was likely viewed the same way
as the right to breath air. Is breathing in the Constitution? Can you live
without doing so?

Wes

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Now, does it include a presumption of a pre-existing individual right?
That's one of the arguable points. If you check the original debates in
Congress over the Bill of Rights, you'll find NO MENTION whatever of any
other purpose for the 2nd Amendment except the right of the states to arm
and maintain their own militias.

One must consider that the right to bear arms was likely viewed the same
way
as the right to breath air. Is breathing in the Constitution? Can you
live
without doing so?

That's an argument, that the individual right was so readily assumed that it
didn't require iteration in a Bill of Rights. But that runs up against
conservative jurisprudence, which basically says that if the right isn't
spelled out, then it's up to Congress whether it should be treated as a
right under law. That's the position that Robert Bork and other
"originalists" take.

But the current group of "originalists" are, as they said about the virgin
in "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum," bum originalists.
That's good for the likelihood they'll find for an individual right. What
these Justices really are is liberal jurists who have a politically
conservative agenda. It makes for a pretty foul-smelling jurist, but it
might be enough to overturn a century of federal-court precedent and find
for the individual right.

BTW, someone commented that the weight of precedence is on the side of the
individual right. Not so. For example, exactly two Circuit Courts of Appeals
have found for an individual right, if you include the DC Circuit that
precipitated this case. In contrast, six (I think) Circuit Courts have found
for a collective right. The rest of the 13 haven't had a decisive case on
the issue.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Hawke" wrote in message
...




http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-cont...icus_texas.pdf

The states that oppose the individual rights (6 states joined it)
had
already filed a brief, available he




http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-cont...cus_states.pdf

Again, the overwhelming number of organizations, states, and so on
are
filing on behalf of the individual right:


When you hear what the side advocating for the amendment not being an
individual right it makes you wonder how they got even six states to
go
for
it. The legal and historical evidence is all on the side of it being
an
individual right so you really have to do some intellectual
contortions
to
take the other side.

No, it's not. Most of the legal "evidence" is on the side of it being a
collective right. The historical "evidence" tells us that the FFs
generally
believed in an individual right. It does NOT tell you that they were
addressing that issue with the 2nd. In fact, the case is stronger that
the
2nd was all about militias.

The question is whether the presumption on which the 2nd is based
included
an individual right -- a pre-existing right that precedes the
Constitution.
That's the main battleground in the Heller case.

It's beginning to look like the individual right
position is finally going to be accepted in the law.

Maybe. It's still a tossup. The Supreme Court will have to reach into
the
"penumbras and emanations" to find for the individual right. That's the
approach that conservative jurists have scoffed at for four or five
decades
now. If they reach into that Pandora's box to find for an individual
right,
they'll have a hell of a time ever overturning Roe v. Wade, for
example,
because that's what the Roe decision was based on, too.

It's not a simple situation. From all angles, this one is very complex,
with
numerous potential unintended consequences.

It's about time. It's
been well known for decades that the position that the amendment only
referred to militias was completely bogus.

Nonsense. No one "knows" it to this day.

Read the petitioner's brief, Hawke. Then read a couple of the amici for
the
petitioner. Those are the arguments on which most federal precedent
concerning the 2nd are based.

--
Ed Huntress

Once again I'm saying that notwithstanding legal arguments this is
ultimately a simple case. Does a right exist or not. Virtually all the
beliefs held by ordinary Americans for most of the country's history
were
the same. The reason for the second amendment and the meaning of it were
not
contested. It meant the people had the right to be armed and the state
was
prohibited by the constitution, of all things, from taking them away
without
a damned good reason.

I have no patience for an extended discussion about this now, but I'll hit
the high points. First, on this one: you have it sort of upside-down. The
2nd was a specific response to the anti-federalists who had expressed a
fear
that the federal government, under Article I, section 8, would preclude
the
states from arming their own militias and would therefore nationalize the
militia itself, or, worse, establish a standing, federal army. It was this
fear that the 2nd specifically addresses.

Now, does it include a presumption of a pre-existing individual right?
That's one of the arguable points. If you check the original debates in
Congress over the Bill of Rights, you'll find NO MENTION whatever of any
other purpose for the 2nd Amendment except the right of the states to arm
and maintain their own militias.

As for the wording of the various state constitutions and the
recommendations that were submitted to Congress for inclusion in the Bill
of
Rights, note that those other things were REJECTED and EXCLUDED from the
final draft, the one that was ratified and the text of which now makes up
the 2nd Amendment.

That's a problem. And that's what the last few decades of academic study
and
legal theorizing are trying to overcome, with this specific Supreme Court
case.

I'm sure if you asked Teddy Roosevelt if the 2nd
amendment gave the citizen the right to arms and not solely militias he
would have given you a resounding affirmation.

Teddy Roosevelt was not one of the founding fathers, anymore than Bill
Clinton was. d8-)

It is only in modern times
that the idea that the amendment was all about militias, when
coincidentally, by then they were a thing of the past.

Take a look at the citations in the petitioner's brief. You'll find that
your position on this, too is incorrect.

But this question
isn't a new one or exclusively and American one. In Machiavelli's
"Prince"
he discusses an armed populace and a disarmed one.

Machiavelli didn't get to vote on ratification of the Bill of Rights. d8-)

The question has been
around for centuries and when the signers of the constitution wrote the
2nd
amendment there was no doubt in their minds what they intended.

From the history, there is little doubt that the founders believed in an
individual right. Whether they incorporated that belief in the 2nd
Amendment, or if it actually is what it appears to be from the historical
record, which is a response to the demand by the anti-federalists for
protection against federal assumption of militia powers, has dozens of
historians and constitutional scholars at loggerheads, as we speak.

To
specifically prevent the government from disarming the ordinary citizen
whether for his own good, or to impose a tyranny. Either way the meaning
was
crystal clear and only today is there any question about what it was
meant
to do. Legal arguing is a completely different kettle of fish and is
mainly
superfluous.

You're still a good 500 pages behind where you need to be to understand
the
nature of the argument. This isn't a college history quiz, it's a complex
legal issue.


That's not the way I'm arguing it. It is the way you are and how the
petitioners in the legal action are. But to me it's like priests arguing how
many angels can fit on the head of a pin. It's irrelevant. Now, if I wanted
I could make a strictly legal argument for either side using legal reasoning
and precedent but that's a joke in this case. As was pointed out already,
breathing wasn't considered anything to be protected by the constitution but
keeping arms was and for one reason really. Because the country had just
fought a war and only having arms allowed them to win. At the time having
firearms wasn't a legal issue. Everyone who wanted them had them and the
only idea of taking them away came from a foreign tyrant. The only fear was
that a local tyrant might try to do the same so it was codified permanently
in the constitution. This issue about militias was a side issue. Every male
of age was a militiaman, they supplied their own weapons. It's obvious that
aside from the militia duty everyone was also entitled to arms for the other
reasons people had them; for self defense, hunting, and fun. To the people
living when the constitution was written it would have been unthinkable that
they didn't have a god given right to arms to defend themselves with. This
was universally accepted. To them the right to arms was an individual one.
It always was. It remained this way for a hundred and fifty years, at least.
If the court rules it's an individual right all it will do is make things
like they were in the past, and the way it was meant to be. Does that mean
the supreme court and it's opinions has anything to do with truth, reality,
justice, or what's right. You know the answer. The right is an individual
one regardless of what this particular 9 people have to say. The only
difference is that in the past the court never would have taken a case like
this because it was self evident to earlier courts that an individual having
arms is an obvious extension of the natural right of self defense, and who
could argue against that?

Hawke

"Hawke" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Hawke" wrote in message
...




http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-cont...icus_texas.pdf

The states that oppose the individual rights (6 states joined it)
had
already filed a brief, available he




http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-cont...cus_states.pdf

Again, the overwhelming number of organizations, states, and so on
are
filing on behalf of the individual right:


When you hear what the side advocating for the amendment not being
an
individual right it makes you wonder how they got even six states to
go
for
it. The legal and historical evidence is all on the side of it being
an
individual right so you really have to do some intellectual
contortions
to
take the other side.

No, it's not. Most of the legal "evidence" is on the side of it being
a
collective right. The historical "evidence" tells us that the FFs
generally
believed in an individual right. It does NOT tell you that they were
addressing that issue with the 2nd. In fact, the case is stronger that
the
2nd was all about militias.

The question is whether the presumption on which the 2nd is based
included
an individual right -- a pre-existing right that precedes the
Constitution.
That's the main battleground in the Heller case.

It's beginning to look like the individual right
position is finally going to be accepted in the law.

Maybe. It's still a tossup. The Supreme Court will have to reach into
the
"penumbras and emanations" to find for the individual right. That's
the
approach that conservative jurists have scoffed at for four or five
decades
now. If they reach into that Pandora's box to find for an individual
right,
they'll have a hell of a time ever overturning Roe v. Wade, for
example,
because that's what the Roe decision was based on, too.

It's not a simple situation. From all angles, this one is very
complex,
with
numerous potential unintended consequences.

It's about time. It's
been well known for decades that the position that the amendment
only
referred to militias was completely bogus.

Nonsense. No one "knows" it to this day.

Read the petitioner's brief, Hawke. Then read a couple of the amici
for
the
petitioner. Those are the arguments on which most federal precedent
concerning the 2nd are based.

--
Ed Huntress

Once again I'm saying that notwithstanding legal arguments this is
ultimately a simple case. Does a right exist or not. Virtually all the
beliefs held by ordinary Americans for most of the country's history
were
the same. The reason for the second amendment and the meaning of it
were
not
contested. It meant the people had the right to be armed and the state
was
prohibited by the constitution, of all things, from taking them away
without
a damned good reason.

I have no patience for an extended discussion about this now, but I'll
hit
the high points. First, on this one: you have it sort of upside-down. The
2nd was a specific response to the anti-federalists who had expressed a
fear
that the federal government, under Article I, section 8, would preclude
the
states from arming their own militias and would therefore nationalize the
militia itself, or, worse, establish a standing, federal army. It was
this
fear that the 2nd specifically addresses.

Now, does it include a presumption of a pre-existing individual right?
That's one of the arguable points. If you check the original debates in
Congress over the Bill of Rights, you'll find NO MENTION whatever of any
other purpose for the 2nd Amendment except the right of the states to arm
and maintain their own militias.

As for the wording of the various state constitutions and the
recommendations that were submitted to Congress for inclusion in the Bill
of
Rights, note that those other things were REJECTED and EXCLUDED from the
final draft, the one that was ratified and the text of which now makes up
the 2nd Amendment.

That's a problem. And that's what the last few decades of academic study
and
legal theorizing are trying to overcome, with this specific Supreme Court
case.

I'm sure if you asked Teddy Roosevelt if the 2nd
amendment gave the citizen the right to arms and not solely militias he
would have given you a resounding affirmation.

Teddy Roosevelt was not one of the founding fathers, anymore than Bill
Clinton was. d8-)

It is only in modern times
that the idea that the amendment was all about militias, when
coincidentally, by then they were a thing of the past.

Take a look at the citations in the petitioner's brief. You'll find that
your position on this, too is incorrect.

But this question
isn't a new one or exclusively and American one. In Machiavelli's
"Prince"
he discusses an armed populace and a disarmed one.

Machiavelli didn't get to vote on ratification of the Bill of Rights.
d8-)

The question has been
around for centuries and when the signers of the constitution wrote the
2nd
amendment there was no doubt in their minds what they intended.

From the history, there is little doubt that the founders believed in an
individual right. Whether they incorporated that belief in the 2nd
Amendment, or if it actually is what it appears to be from the historical
record, which is a response to the demand by the anti-federalists for
protection against federal assumption of militia powers, has dozens of
historians and constitutional scholars at loggerheads, as we speak.

To
specifically prevent the government from disarming the ordinary citizen
whether for his own good, or to impose a tyranny. Either way the
meaning
was
crystal clear and only today is there any question about what it was
meant
to do. Legal arguing is a completely different kettle of fish and is
mainly
superfluous.

You're still a good 500 pages behind where you need to be to understand
the
nature of the argument. This isn't a college history quiz, it's a complex
legal issue.


That's not the way I'm arguing it. It is the way you are and how the
petitioners in the legal action are. But to me it's like priests arguing
how
many angels can fit on the head of a pin. It's irrelevant. Now, if I
wanted
I could make a strictly legal argument for either side using legal
reasoning
and precedent but that's a joke in this case. As was pointed out already,
breathing wasn't considered anything to be protected by the constitution
but
keeping arms was and for one reason really. Because the country had just
fought a war and only having arms allowed them to win. At the time having
firearms wasn't a legal issue. Everyone who wanted them had them and the
only idea of taking them away came from a foreign tyrant. The only fear
was
that a local tyrant might try to do the same so it was codified
permanently
in the constitution. This issue about militias was a side issue. Every
male
of age was a militiaman, they supplied their own weapons. It's obvious
that
aside from the militia duty everyone was also entitled to arms for the
other
reasons people had them; for self defense, hunting, and fun. To the people
living when the constitution was written it would have been unthinkable
that
they didn't have a god given right to arms to defend themselves with. This
was universally accepted. To them the right to arms was an individual one.
It always was. It remained this way for a hundred and fifty years, at
least.
If the court rules it's an individual right all it will do is make things
like they were in the past, and the way it was meant to be. Does that mean
the supreme court and it's opinions has anything to do with truth,
reality,
justice, or what's right. You know the answer. The right is an individual
one regardless of what this particular 9 people have to say. The only
difference is that in the past the court never would have taken a case
like
this because it was self evident to earlier courts that an individual
having
arms is an obvious extension of the natural right of self defense, and who
could argue against that?

Regardless of your argument, what is your basis for claiming that these
things were ones that the 2nd Amendment was intended to address? That's the
first question. If the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense,
etc. was so universally accepted, have you considered that they didn't even
bother to list it among the rights the federal government would not
transgress? They didn't say anything about your right to marry and have
children or not, at your discretion, either. Nor did they say anything about
your right to privacy. Yet, it took a Supreme Court decision (Griswold v.
Connecticut) to decide that you and your wife have a right to the use of
contraceptives, as a private decision for you alone to make. The state of
Connecticut at that time, in the 1960s, said you did not.

This could go on and on and I really don't want to debate the 2nd. I happen
to believe that the legal and historical arguments favor the individual
right, anyway. But you're making some very incorrect assumptions about the
legal situation regarding the 2nd and you're attributing contrary court
decisions to ill intent of some kind on the part of the courts that have
decided against the individual right. You say the argument that the 2nd is
all about militias is "bogus," but, if you tried, you couldn't find a single
word in the original debates about anything OTHER THAN militias. That's all
they talked about in the Congressional debates regarding the 2nd.

But the Constitution is a legal document, and this is a legal case; a very
complex one, at that. To say it's "simple," or to say you know what's
"right," tells us that you haven't given objective thought to the counter
arguments made in the many cases in which the courts have decided that the
right is a collective one. You may feel that those are weaker arguments -- I
do -- but to say they're "bogus" is foolish.

What you think is "right," in historical terms, doesn't explain why all of
the history directly leading to the 2nd itself points to it being the answer
to a specific demand made by the anti-federalists, that the federal
government be precluded from assuming control over the state militias by
disarming them, using Article I of the Constitution as a device to establish
a federal militia or standing army. What is "right" in your opinion may well
be an accurate assessment of what the Founding Fathers believed about the
private ownership of firearms. But it may also have nothing to do with the
content of the 2nd Amendment. Nobody really knows, because the historical
record on this point is incomplete. And the text of the Amendment itself is
ambiguous.

I'm going to guess that you didn't read the petitioner's brief, or that you
didn't consider it carefully. If so, that's a mistake. You should read it.
It's the basic argument that's been accepted by the Circuit Courts of
Appeals, over the individual-rights argument, by a ratio of 3 to 1. And the
judges on those courts are not stupid people.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Hawke" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Hawke" wrote in message
...





http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-cont...icus_texas.pdf

The states that oppose the individual rights (6 states joined it)
had
already filed a brief, available he





http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-cont...cus_states.pdf

Again, the overwhelming number of organizations, states, and so
on
are
filing on behalf of the individual right:


When you hear what the side advocating for the amendment not being
an
individual right it makes you wonder how they got even six states
to
go
for
it. The legal and historical evidence is all on the side of it
being
an
individual right so you really have to do some intellectual
contortions
to
take the other side.

No, it's not. Most of the legal "evidence" is on the side of it
being
a
collective right. The historical "evidence" tells us that the FFs
generally
believed in an individual right. It does NOT tell you that they were
addressing that issue with the 2nd. In fact, the case is stronger
that
the
2nd was all about militias.

The question is whether the presumption on which the 2nd is based
included
an individual right -- a pre-existing right that precedes the
Constitution.
That's the main battleground in the Heller case.

It's beginning to look like the individual right
position is finally going to be accepted in the law.

Maybe. It's still a tossup. The Supreme Court will have to reach
into
the
"penumbras and emanations" to find for the individual right. That's
the
approach that conservative jurists have scoffed at for four or five
decades
now. If they reach into that Pandora's box to find for an individual
right,
they'll have a hell of a time ever overturning Roe v. Wade, for
example,
because that's what the Roe decision was based on, too.

It's not a simple situation. From all angles, this one is very
complex,
with
numerous potential unintended consequences.

It's about time. It's
been well known for decades that the position that the amendment
only
referred to militias was completely bogus.

Nonsense. No one "knows" it to this day.

Read the petitioner's brief, Hawke. Then read a couple of the amici
for
the
petitioner. Those are the arguments on which most federal precedent
concerning the 2nd are based.

--
Ed Huntress

Once again I'm saying that notwithstanding legal arguments this is
ultimately a simple case. Does a right exist or not. Virtually all
the
beliefs held by ordinary Americans for most of the country's history
were
the same. The reason for the second amendment and the meaning of it
were
not
contested. It meant the people had the right to be armed and the
state
was
prohibited by the constitution, of all things, from taking them away
without
a damned good reason.

I have no patience for an extended discussion about this now, but I'll
hit
the high points. First, on this one: you have it sort of upside-down.
The
2nd was a specific response to the anti-federalists who had expressed a
fear
that the federal government, under Article I, section 8, would preclude
the
states from arming their own militias and would therefore nationalize
the
militia itself, or, worse, establish a standing, federal army. It was
this
fear that the 2nd specifically addresses.

Now, does it include a presumption of a pre-existing individual right?
That's one of the arguable points. If you check the original debates in
Congress over the Bill of Rights, you'll find NO MENTION whatever of
any
other purpose for the 2nd Amendment except the right of the states to
arm
and maintain their own militias.

As for the wording of the various state constitutions and the
recommendations that were submitted to Congress for inclusion in the
Bill
of
Rights, note that those other things were REJECTED and EXCLUDED from
the
final draft, the one that was ratified and the text of which now makes
up
the 2nd Amendment.

That's a problem. And that's what the last few decades of academic
study
and
legal theorizing are trying to overcome, with this specific Supreme
Court
case.

I'm sure if you asked Teddy Roosevelt if the 2nd
amendment gave the citizen the right to arms and not solely militias
he
would have given you a resounding affirmation.

Teddy Roosevelt was not one of the founding fathers, anymore than Bill
Clinton was. d8-)

It is only in modern times
that the idea that the amendment was all about militias, when
coincidentally, by then they were a thing of the past.

Take a look at the citations in the petitioner's brief. You'll find
that
your position on this, too is incorrect.

But this question
isn't a new one or exclusively and American one. In Machiavelli's
"Prince"
he discusses an armed populace and a disarmed one.

Machiavelli didn't get to vote on ratification of the Bill of Rights.
d8-)

The question has been
around for centuries and when the signers of the constitution wrote
the
2nd
amendment there was no doubt in their minds what they intended.

From the history, there is little doubt that the founders believed in
an
individual right. Whether they incorporated that belief in the 2nd
Amendment, or if it actually is what it appears to be from the
historical
record, which is a response to the demand by the anti-federalists for
protection against federal assumption of militia powers, has dozens of
historians and constitutional scholars at loggerheads, as we speak.

To
specifically prevent the government from disarming the ordinary
citizen
whether for his own good, or to impose a tyranny. Either way the
meaning
was
crystal clear and only today is there any question about what it was
meant
to do. Legal arguing is a completely different kettle of fish and is
mainly
superfluous.

You're still a good 500 pages behind where you need to be to understand
the
nature of the argument. This isn't a college history quiz, it's a
complex
legal issue.


That's not the way I'm arguing it. It is the way you are and how the
petitioners in the legal action are. But to me it's like priests arguing
how
many angels can fit on the head of a pin. It's irrelevant. Now, if I
wanted
I could make a strictly legal argument for either side using legal
reasoning
and precedent but that's a joke in this case. As was pointed out
already,
breathing wasn't considered anything to be protected by the constitution
but
keeping arms was and for one reason really. Because the country had just
fought a war and only having arms allowed them to win. At the time
having
firearms wasn't a legal issue. Everyone who wanted them had them and the
only idea of taking them away came from a foreign tyrant. The only fear
was
that a local tyrant might try to do the same so it was codified
permanently
in the constitution. This issue about militias was a side issue. Every
male
of age was a militiaman, they supplied their own weapons. It's obvious
that
aside from the militia duty everyone was also entitled to arms for the
other
reasons people had them; for self defense, hunting, and fun. To the
people
living when the constitution was written it would have been unthinkable
that
they didn't have a god given right to arms to defend themselves with.
This
was universally accepted. To them the right to arms was an individual
one.
It always was. It remained this way for a hundred and fifty years, at
least.
If the court rules it's an individual right all it will do is make
things
like they were in the past, and the way it was meant to be. Does that
mean
the supreme court and it's opinions has anything to do with truth,
reality,
justice, or what's right. You know the answer. The right is an
individual
one regardless of what this particular 9 people have to say. The only
difference is that in the past the court never would have taken a case
like
this because it was self evident to earlier courts that an individual
having
arms is an obvious extension of the natural right of self defense, and
who
could argue against that?

Regardless of your argument, what is your basis for claiming that these
things were ones that the 2nd Amendment was intended to address? That's
the
first question. If the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense,
etc. was so universally accepted, have you considered that they didn't
even
bother to list it among the rights the federal government would not
transgress? They didn't say anything about your right to marry and have
children or not, at your discretion, either. Nor did they say anything
about
your right to privacy. Yet, it took a Supreme Court decision (Griswold v.
Connecticut) to decide that you and your wife have a right to the use of
contraceptives, as a private decision for you alone to make. The state of
Connecticut at that time, in the 1960s, said you did not.

This could go on and on and I really don't want to debate the 2nd. I
happen
to believe that the legal and historical arguments favor the individual
right, anyway. But you're making some very incorrect assumptions about the
legal situation regarding the 2nd and you're attributing contrary court
decisions to ill intent of some kind on the part of the courts that have
decided against the individual right. You say the argument that the 2nd is
all about militias is "bogus," but, if you tried, you couldn't find a
single
word in the original debates about anything OTHER THAN militias. That's
all
they talked about in the Congressional debates regarding the 2nd.

But the Constitution is a legal document, and this is a legal case; a very
complex one, at that. To say it's "simple," or to say you know what's
"right," tells us that you haven't given objective thought to the counter
arguments made in the many cases in which the courts have decided that the
right is a collective one. You may feel that those are weaker arguments --
I
do -- but to say they're "bogus" is foolish.

What you think is "right," in historical terms, doesn't explain why all of
the history directly leading to the 2nd itself points to it being the
answer
to a specific demand made by the anti-federalists, that the federal
government be precluded from assuming control over the state militias by
disarming them, using Article I of the Constitution as a device to
establish
a federal militia or standing army. What is "right" in your opinion may
well
be an accurate assessment of what the Founding Fathers believed about the
private ownership of firearms. But it may also have nothing to do with the
content of the 2nd Amendment. Nobody really knows, because the historical
record on this point is incomplete. And the text of the Amendment itself
is
ambiguous.

I'm going to guess that you didn't read the petitioner's brief, or that
you
didn't consider it carefully. If so, that's a mistake. You should read it.
It's the basic argument that's been accepted by the Circuit Courts of
Appeals, over the individual-rights argument, by a ratio of 3 to 1. And
the
judges on those courts are not stupid people.

--
Ed Huntress


You make some good points. You also make some that I don't agree with. I'm
on the west coast and it's getting too late for me to respond right now. But
I'll get back to you on it tomorrow.

Hawke

"nick hull" wrote in message
.. .
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"nick hull" wrote in message
.. .
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"nick hull" wrote in message
.. .
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

The question is whether the presumption on which the 2nd is based
included
an individual right -- a pre-existing right that precedes the
Constitution.

There are those who BELIEVE the RKBA is an individual right, and
will
ultimately fight for that belief by any means necessary. In the
end,
the only rights we have are those that we fight for.

And if you win, are you prepared to agree that Roe v. Wade is equally
good
jurisprudence?

Wether you like abortion or not, Rove v. Wade was based on perjured
testimony.

sigh So what does that have to do with the Supreme Court decision?
Perjury
is for the lower courts to deal with.

So I'll ask again, if you're willing to reach into the surrounding
history
of the 2nd to support an individual right, are you equally willing to
support the similar jurisprudence of Roe v. Wade?

The Supreme Court should deal with perjury in the Supreme Court.

But they don't, unless there's a constitutional issue raised by the perjury
itself -- an unlikely possibility. So that doesn't answer the question.


And YES, I am willing to support an individual right in almost
everything. I see 2 problems with Roe v Wade; the Constitution does not
give the Feds jurisdiction over medicine, and the issue of legal life
needs to be settled. It has always been at birth.

Well, that's what Roe v. Wade does, doesn't it?

If life legally
begins at conception, the Feds can institute a Vagina Police and charge
any woman that miscarries with manslaughter.

Nonsense. If she miscarries, that's an accident of nature, not something
that happens due to her volition.

They might also require
monthly pregnancy tests to assure they don't lose any future soldiers or
bureaucrats. Do you want to give the Feds that power?

The people who might are the Christian right. g


The govt that has the power to give you what you want has the power to
take what you have.

Are we coining flimsy aphorisms, or deciding a legal issue?

It sounds to me that you agree that Roe v. Wade is a correct decision. If
you're willing to reach out beyond the words and history of the Bill of
Rights to find additional "rights," then there probably is no limit to what
you could find. Or do you have a guiding principle for that?

The guiding principle created in Roe v. Wade is clever, logically
consistent, and perfectly rational. But it continues to stick in the craw of
many people who don't like the decision. Likewise, the 2nd Amendment.

--
Ed Huntress

In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"nick hull" wrote in message
.. .
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"nick hull" wrote in message
.. .
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

The question is whether the presumption on which the 2nd is based
included
an individual right -- a pre-existing right that precedes the
Constitution.

There are those who BELIEVE the RKBA is an individual right, and will
ultimately fight for that belief by any means necessary. In the end,
the only rights we have are those that we fight for.

And if you win, are you prepared to agree that Roe v. Wade is equally
good
jurisprudence?

Wether you like abortion or not, Rove v. Wade was based on perjured
testimony.

sigh So what does that have to do with the Supreme Court decision? Perjury
is for the lower courts to deal with.

So I'll ask again, if you're willing to reach into the surrounding history
of the 2nd to support an individual right, are you equally willing to
support the similar jurisprudence of Roe v. Wade?

The Supreme Court should deal with perjury in the Supreme Court.

And YES, I am willing to support an individual right in almost
everything. I see 2 problems with Roe v Wade; the Constitution does not
give the Feds jurisdiction over medicine, and the issue of legal life
needs to be settled. It has always been at birth. If life legally
begins at conception, the Feds can institute a Vagina Police and charge
any woman that miscarries with manslaughter. They might also require
monthly pregnancy tests to assure they don't lose any future soldiers or
bureaucrats. Do you want to give the Feds that power?

The govt that has the power to give you what you want has the power to
take what you have.

Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/

The question is whether the presumption on which the 2nd is based
included
an individual right -- a pre-existing right that precedes the
Constitution.

There are those who BELIEVE the RKBA is an individual right, and
will
ultimately fight for that belief by any means necessary. In the
end,
the only rights we have are those that we fight for.

And if you win, are you prepared to agree that Roe v. Wade is
equally
good
jurisprudence?

Wether you like abortion or not, Rove v. Wade was based on perjured
testimony.

sigh So what does that have to do with the Supreme Court decision?
Perjury
is for the lower courts to deal with.

So I'll ask again, if you're willing to reach into the surrounding
history
of the 2nd to support an individual right, are you equally willing to
support the similar jurisprudence of Roe v. Wade?

The Supreme Court should deal with perjury in the Supreme Court.

But they don't, unless there's a constitutional issue raised by the
perjury
itself -- an unlikely possibility. So that doesn't answer the question.


And YES, I am willing to support an individual right in almost
everything. I see 2 problems with Roe v Wade; the Constitution does not
give the Feds jurisdiction over medicine, and the issue of legal life
needs to be settled. It has always been at birth.

Well, that's what Roe v. Wade does, doesn't it?

If life legally
begins at conception, the Feds can institute a Vagina Police and charge
any woman that miscarries with manslaughter.

Nonsense. If she miscarries, that's an accident of nature, not something
that happens due to her volition.

They might also require
monthly pregnancy tests to assure they don't lose any future soldiers or
bureaucrats. Do you want to give the Feds that power?

The people who might are the Christian right. g


The govt that has the power to give you what you want has the power to
take what you have.

Are we coining flimsy aphorisms, or deciding a legal issue?

It sounds to me that you agree that Roe v. Wade is a correct decision. If
you're willing to reach out beyond the words and history of the Bill of
Rights to find additional "rights," then there probably is no limit to
what
you could find. Or do you have a guiding principle for that?

The guiding principle created in Roe v. Wade is clever, logically
consistent, and perfectly rational. But it continues to stick in the craw
of
many people who don't like the decision. Likewise, the 2nd Amendment.

--
Ed Huntress


I think the examples of Roe vs Wade and the 2nd Amendment demonstrate how
the law and judicial construction are supposed to work. In the case of Roe
vs Wade you have a situation where the court has to extend the constitution
to an event that was never contemplated by the founding fathers. Nothing was
ever mentioned about abortion or reproductive rights in the constitution and
there was virtually nothing to find in the contemporary writings either.
That means the modern court has to figure out how to decide what is
constitutional without any help from the law's creators. So they came up
with the penumbras and emanations ploy to find a right to privacy in the
constitution. It was constructed completely out of thin air but it worked
and that's what being a judge is all about. Making things work to bring
about a just outcome.

The 2nd Amendment is exactly the opposite. It's a simple case, as I said
before, because it basically comes down to a yes or no answer. Did the
constitution mean that the right to bear arms was meant to apply to American
citizens? That's a yes or no any way you slice it. Unlike the court that
decided Roe, the current court can go back in history and find out exactly
what the lawmakers who made the law intended when they wrote it. It's also
similar to the 14th Amendment debate. Before it's adoption the thinking at
the time was that the constitution only applied to the federal government
and not to the individual state governments. That was a yes or no decision
too. Now it seems obvious that the 14th Amendment applied to the whole
country, but it was argued by some at the time that it did not. It's the
same with the 2nd Amendment. Aside from all the legal arguments, it's
understandable from the plain language of the amendment that, like all the
others mentioning "the people", it does indeed mean the people when it says
people and protects their individual right to bear arms.

If you only go back as far as early American history to understand what the
2nd Amendment actually means you don't get a full understanding of what the
people of that era believed. If you go back to England and look at what they
thought about the right to bear arms you find that what the American
colonists believed came from an English tradition long before they came to
America. Tied in with the long historical belief of a right to self defense
and to be armed as well as possible is the belief that this right is a
natural one, derived from a creator. With a long history of believing in the
right of the people to bear arms and to self defense the American colonists
came here believing they had that right long before it was written down in
the constitution. You can find all kinds of writing from the time that shows
this. Taken from a historical belief in this god given right it is very
clear that the consensus in early America was that all Americans had the
right to keep and bear arms, constitution or no constitution. When the bill
of rights was added to the constitution it was believed that this merely
confirmed what everyone already knew, and as an added protection against the
actions of tyrannical government which may come to power. This fear of our
own government was strong at the time and individually armed citizens and no
t just an organized militia, was seen as the best protection against
tyranny.

Given all that, I maintain that this belief in the right to bear arms has
been held in common by the American people for as long as they have lived on
this continent. So now we come to the legalisms and nit picking of the
lawyers about what each and every word means as if the whole sentence can
not actually be understood by the ordinary man. After all the arguments have
been heard we come again to the choice of whether the constitution means the
militia has a right to arms or whether the people have a right to arms. By
way of the historical beliefs of Americans regarding the topic of arms and
of their leaders' views on the subject only one conclusion is possible; the
2nd Amendment is meant to protect the right of the people to bear arms. The
court may listen to counter arguments and may decide that there is no right
for individuals to have their own personal arms. But they would be wrong if
they do. Looking back at the track record of the courts in the past I
wouldn't be surprised if they do decide it wrongly. Any court that could
affirm the Dred Scott decision could do anything and I wouldn't put it past
the current group to come up with an equally bad decision. That's because
despite the quality of any legal arguments it will boil down to the personal
policy preferences of the sitting justices. They will do whatever they want
according to their political beliefs and then make complicated and intricate
legal explanations for why they did what they wanted to all along.

Hawke

"Hawke" wrote in message
...

The question is whether the presumption on which the 2nd is
based
included
an individual right -- a pre-existing right that precedes the
Constitution.

There are those who BELIEVE the RKBA is an individual right, and
will
ultimately fight for that belief by any means necessary. In the
end,
the only rights we have are those that we fight for.

And if you win, are you prepared to agree that Roe v. Wade is
equally
good
jurisprudence?

Wether you like abortion or not, Rove v. Wade was based on perjured
testimony.

sigh So what does that have to do with the Supreme Court decision?
Perjury
is for the lower courts to deal with.

So I'll ask again, if you're willing to reach into the surrounding
history
of the 2nd to support an individual right, are you equally willing to
support the similar jurisprudence of Roe v. Wade?

The Supreme Court should deal with perjury in the Supreme Court.

But they don't, unless there's a constitutional issue raised by the
perjury
itself -- an unlikely possibility. So that doesn't answer the question.


And YES, I am willing to support an individual right in almost
everything. I see 2 problems with Roe v Wade; the Constitution does
not
give the Feds jurisdiction over medicine, and the issue of legal life
needs to be settled. It has always been at birth.

Well, that's what Roe v. Wade does, doesn't it?

If life legally
begins at conception, the Feds can institute a Vagina Police and charge
any woman that miscarries with manslaughter.

Nonsense. If she miscarries, that's an accident of nature, not something
that happens due to her volition.

They might also require
monthly pregnancy tests to assure they don't lose any future soldiers
or
bureaucrats. Do you want to give the Feds that power?

The people who might are the Christian right. g


The govt that has the power to give you what you want has the power to
take what you have.

Are we coining flimsy aphorisms, or deciding a legal issue?

It sounds to me that you agree that Roe v. Wade is a correct decision. If
you're willing to reach out beyond the words and history of the Bill of
Rights to find additional "rights," then there probably is no limit to
what
you could find. Or do you have a guiding principle for that?

The guiding principle created in Roe v. Wade is clever, logically
consistent, and perfectly rational. But it continues to stick in the craw
of
many people who don't like the decision. Likewise, the 2nd Amendment.

--
Ed Huntress


I think the examples of Roe vs Wade and the 2nd Amendment demonstrate how
the law and judicial construction are supposed to work. In the case of Roe
vs Wade you have a situation where the court has to extend the
constitution
to an event that was never contemplated by the founding fathers. Nothing
was
ever mentioned about abortion or reproductive rights in the constitution
and
there was virtually nothing to find in the contemporary writings either.

The status of abortion was that it was generally allowed, under law, under
religion, and even from common law, until the middle of the 19th century. If
you read the Roe case you'll find citations and footnotes aplenty to support
the fact that abortion laws didn't start to become absolute until around
1850. And yes, there were plenty of contemporary writings.

That's similar to the situation with guns, although gun control came later.
The "writings" favoring the individual right were not a part of the debates;
they were peripheral, much like those concerning abortion.

We've been fed a steady diet of quotations by the pro-gun groups for so
long, and so extensively, that it's not easy to keep it in perspective.

That means the modern court has to figure out how to decide what is
constitutional without any help from the law's creators. So they came up
with the penumbras and emanations ploy to find a right to privacy in the
constitution. It was constructed completely out of thin air but it worked
and that's what being a judge is all about. Making things work to bring
about a just outcome.

The trouble with the originalist interpretation is that you have no rights
except those that are explicit in the Bill of Rights. There is no such thing
as a "pre-existing right" to an originalist. BTW, the penumbras and
emanations doctrine has not been used in cases over the last few decades.
The battleground now is called "substantive due process."

The trouble with your interpretation, which has been called
"consequentialist," is that it has no limit. Both the "penumbras and
emanations" approach and the substantive due process interpretation can be
limited by the very philosophy that brings them into being. In practice,
though, those limits have clearly been breached.


The 2nd Amendment is exactly the opposite. It's a simple case, as I said
before, because it basically comes down to a yes or no answer. Did the
constitution mean that the right to bear arms was meant to apply to
American
citizens? That's a yes or no any way you slice it.

Well, first of all, it could only have applied to the federal government at
the time it was written. The federal government had no authority over rights
limited by the states. So your "yes or no" becomes "yes *and* no," at best.
d8-)

Unlike the court that
decided Roe, the current court can go back in history and find out exactly
what the lawmakers who made the law intended when they wrote it.

No, they can't. They can find out what some important voices had to say
about their feelings concerning it. They can't relate that directly to the
Amendment. All you can relate directly to the 2nd Amendment is the fact that
the authors were addressing the concern expressed by the anti-federalists,
which I have mentioned twice before.

It's also
similar to the 14th Amendment debate. Before it's adoption the thinking at
the time was that the constitution only applied to the federal government
and not to the individual state governments. That was a yes or no decision
too. Now it seems obvious that the 14th Amendment applied to the whole
country, but it was argued by some at the time that it did not.

It's not so obvious. The doctrine only appeared in 1925, with the Gitlow v.
New York case. And it wasn't "yes or no." It was sometimes yes, sometimes
no...but, over time, generally yes. But not always yes.

The 14th remains a battleground of constitutional theory.

It's the
same with the 2nd Amendment. Aside from all the legal arguments, it's
understandable from the plain language of the amendment that, like all the
others mentioning "the people", it does indeed mean the people when it
says
people and protects their individual right to bear arms.

But then why did they mess it up by prefacing the issue with a phrase about
militias?


If you only go back as far as early American history to understand what
the
2nd Amendment actually means you don't get a full understanding of what
the
people of that era believed.

What they believed and what they incorporated in the 2nd Amendment is the
subject of the debate, and over 100 years of jurisprudence that, at the
federal level, generally agrees that it was about militias.

If you go back to England and look at what they
thought about the right to bear arms you find that what the American
colonists believed came from an English tradition long before they came to
America. Tied in with the long historical belief of a right to self
defense
and to be armed as well as possible is the belief that this right is a
natural one, derived from a creator.

Without getting into the facts about common law, all that's to be said about
that is "that's nice." Do you think they also believed you have a right to
marry and have children? If so, why did they not write it into the Bill of
Rights?

With a long history of believing in the
right of the people to bear arms and to self defense the American
colonists
came here believing they had that right long before it was written down in
the constitution. You can find all kinds of writing from the time that
shows
this. Taken from a historical belief in this god given right it is very
clear that the consensus in early America was that all Americans had the
right to keep and bear arms, constitution or no constitution.

So what? What does that have to do with the Bill of Rights? If it was so
universal, why have Congress and so many states enacted restrictive gun
control laws?

If your answer it that it's because things changed, well, then, it's too bad
the Founders didn't make explicit what you believe everyone believed.

When the bill
of rights was added to the constitution it was believed that this merely
confirmed what everyone already knew, and as an added protection against
the
actions of tyrannical government which may come to power. This fear of our
own government was strong at the time and individually armed citizens and
no
t just an organized militia, was seen as the best protection against
tyranny.

Given all that, I maintain that this belief in the right to bear arms has
been held in common by the American people for as long as they have lived
on
this continent. So now we come to the legalisms and nit picking of the
lawyers about what each and every word means as if the whole sentence can
not actually be understood by the ordinary man.

I don't know many people, including experienced editors, who can give a
correct explanation of the nature of restrictions inherent in a nominative
absolute sentence. You have to really study it to know the issue. In fact,
there is an interesting (and arguable) amicus brief filed by grammarians on
behalf of the petitioner in this very case. g

After all the arguments have
been heard we come again to the choice of whether the constitution means
the
militia has a right to arms or whether the people have a right to arms. By
way of the historical beliefs of Americans regarding the topic of arms and
of their leaders' views on the subject only one conclusion is possible;
the
2nd Amendment is meant to protect the right of the people to bear arms.

That's a non sequitur. You may know what the historical beliefs are. What
you don't know is if that's what the founders were addressing in the 2nd. At
least partly, we know they were addressing something else.

The
court may listen to counter arguments and may decide that there is no
right
for individuals to have their own personal arms. But they would be wrong
if
they do. Looking back at the track record of the courts in the past I
wouldn't be surprised if they do decide it wrongly. Any court that could
affirm the Dred Scott decision could do anything and I wouldn't put it
past
the current group to come up with an equally bad decision. That's because
despite the quality of any legal arguments it will boil down to the
personal
policy preferences of the sitting justices. They will do whatever they
want
according to their political beliefs and then make complicated and
intricate
legal explanations for why they did what they wanted to all along.

Since you haven't raised a single argument opposed to the individual right
argument, even to shoot it down, it's likely you don't know what they are.
What you've written above could have come straight from the NRA, or from
Gunner's hard disk. g

If you want to understand a legal argument the first thing you do is spend
at least twice as much time studying the arguments opposed to your position
as you do studying those that favor it. Otherwise you'll walk right into a
trap.

You've walked into several here, and anyone well studied and well equipped
with the data would eviscerate most of what you say, because you don't know
what their counter arguments are. They're mostly tied up in the legal
issues. But this, after all, is a legal case.

As I said, this is not a history quiz. As I also said, I don't want to get
into a substantive debate over the 2nd. Now you can see why. I've heard this
exact line you're preaching for close to 30 years. The main problem is that
it's always been overwhelmed in actual federal court cases -- for good
reasons.

'Time to dig into those briefs for the petitioner, Hawke.

--
Ed Huntress

We have a winner, folks.

292 line, Ed.

I think the examples of Roe vs Wade and the 2nd Amendment demonstrate
how
the law and judicial construction are supposed to work. In the case of
Roe
vs Wade you have a situation where the court has to extend the
constitution
to an event that was never contemplated by the founding fathers. Nothing
was
ever mentioned about abortion or reproductive rights in the constitution
and
there was virtually nothing to find in the contemporary writings either.

The status of abortion was that it was generally allowed, under law, under
religion, and even from common law, until the middle of the 19th century.
If
you read the Roe case you'll find citations and footnotes aplenty to
support
the fact that abortion laws didn't start to become absolute until around
1850. And yes, there were plenty of contemporary writings.

Plenty of writings about abortion? Would those be found with all the
writings about sex in general? You know, all the stuff about sexual
activity, male and female sexuality, sexual psychology, attitudes, etc. I
question whether there was "plenty" of writing about abortion. In my
experience virtually everything having to do with sex was taboo until about
the 1960s. Laws on abortion may have come about in the mid 1800s but that
was a subject that was not discussed by "decent" people in those days.



That's similar to the situation with guns, although gun control came
later.
The "writings" favoring the individual right were not a part of the
debates;
they were peripheral, much like those concerning abortion.

We've been fed a steady diet of quotations by the pro-gun groups for so
long, and so extensively, that it's not easy to keep it in perspective.

You know what they say about a blind squirrel, right? Even they find an
acorn now and then. The NRA and the pro gun groups are the same. Some times
what they say is right. Even though they are extremely partisan you have to
admit that at least some of the time they get it right.


That means the modern court has to figure out how to decide what is
constitutional without any help from the law's creators. So they came up
with the penumbras and emanations ploy to find a right to privacy in the
constitution. It was constructed completely out of thin air but it
worked
and that's what being a judge is all about. Making things work to bring
about a just outcome.

The trouble with the originalist interpretation is that you have no rights
except those that are explicit in the Bill of Rights. There is no such
thing
as a "pre-existing right" to an originalist. BTW, the penumbras and
emanations doctrine has not been used in cases over the last few decades.
The battleground now is called "substantive due process."

Well thank you very much. But that's not news to me. My point was that the
justices found a way to stretch the constitution to cover privacy rights.
They have been doing this for a long time and if they didn't the
constitution couldn't apply to all kinds of modern problems that never
occurred to the founders. But that is what they intended when they wrote the
constitution. They wanted it to be adaptable enough to handle what new
things came in the future. Originalists are nuts, by the way. They aren't
really "originalists" anyway. That is just a code word for right wing judge
and they are just as "activist" as any other justices.


The trouble with your interpretation, which has been called
"consequentialist," is that it has no limit. Both the "penumbras and
emanations" approach and the substantive due process interpretation can be
limited by the very philosophy that brings them into being. In practice,
though, those limits have clearly been breached.

No, it does have limits. The limits are the ones the court sees fit to put
in place. It's no different with any philosophy or "school" of thinking.
They all have the same limits, the ones they put on themselves.
Unfortunately, the supreme court is the highest court and whatever they say
the constitution means is what it means. You can't go any higher than it for
an interpretation, unless you're crazy.



The 2nd Amendment is exactly the opposite. It's a simple case, as I said
before, because it basically comes down to a yes or no answer. Did the
constitution mean that the right to bear arms was meant to apply to
American
citizens? That's a yes or no any way you slice it.

Well, first of all, it could only have applied to the federal government
at
the time it was written. The federal government had no authority over
rights
limited by the states. So your "yes or no" becomes "yes *and* no," at
best.
d8-)

Actually, the federal government always had authority over the states
whether it chose to apply them or even acknowledge it had them. The
supremecy clause gives the power to the federal government over the states
in anything it truly wants. You can argue otherwise but in fact what the
feds say goes. This applies to the pre 14th amendment days too. They just
didn't know it at the time. 8-)



Unlike the court that
decided Roe, the current court can go back in history and find out
exactly
what the lawmakers who made the law intended when they wrote it.

No, they can't. They can find out what some important voices had to say
about their feelings concerning it. They can't relate that directly to the
Amendment. All you can relate directly to the 2nd Amendment is the fact
that
the authors were addressing the concern expressed by the anti-federalists,
which I have mentioned twice before.

As I recall, the 2nd amendment was not one that was much in conflict when
they were writing it. You aren't going to find a lot of writing about the
battle over the 2nd amendment because it was not really opposed by anyone
(if you can tell me which founder was against that amendment I'd like to
know). So if you can't seem to find contemporary writings saying what the
founders thought or meant when they wrote the 2nd amendment it was because
everyone thought the same thing and didn't bother discussing what was
commonly accepted. It was like everyone knew why they were putting in the
right to bear arms. The reasons I already said were so accepted that the
only reason it was put in was because of the fear of a foreign invasion or
domestic tyranny. Aside from governmental tyranny there was little reason
anyone had to fear of losing their natural right to own weapons. As to the
anti-federalists, you'll have to direct me to your sources that show they
were not pro 2nd amendment too. The reasons the anti-federalists were
opposed to the new constitution weren't about the 2nd amendment.



It's also
similar to the 14th Amendment debate. Before it's adoption the thinking
at
the time was that the constitution only applied to the federal
government
and not to the individual state governments. That was a yes or no
decision
too. Now it seems obvious that the 14th Amendment applied to the whole
country, but it was argued by some at the time that it did not.

It's not so obvious. The doctrine only appeared in 1925, with the Gitlow
v.
New York case. And it wasn't "yes or no." It was sometimes yes, sometimes
no...but, over time, generally yes. But not always yes.

I'm familiar with Gitlow, and the application of the 14th amendment to the
states is not a yes or no. It's a yes. The interpretation is that the
amendment applies the supremecy of the federal government over the states.
All the time. That doesn't mean there aren't some lawsuits that the states
win in disputes with the federal government. But the court's ruling on
the14th amendment means that the constitution applies everywhere all the
time.


The 14th remains a battleground of constitutional theory.

Not as far as to applying to the states as well as the federal government.


It's the
same with the 2nd Amendment. Aside from all the legal arguments, it's
understandable from the plain language of the amendment that, like all
the
others mentioning "the people", it does indeed mean the people when it
says
people and protects their individual right to bear arms.

But then why did they mess it up by prefacing the issue with a phrase
about
militias?

Good question, and one I've heard discussed in the past. But even from
English experts I have heard that the first clause about the militias is
simply a modifier of the second clause. And it's the second clause that
gives the sentence it's real meaning. But as with all things legal it can be
debated. It reminds me of the Monte Python line about a book he supposedly
wrote titled How to Argue with Anyone.


If you only go back as far as early American history to understand what
the
2nd Amendment actually means you don't get a full understanding of what
the
people of that era believed.

What they believed and what they incorporated in the 2nd Amendment is the
subject of the debate, and over 100 years of jurisprudence that, at the
federal level, generally agrees that it was about militias.

Is that a surprise? Why do you think the country's central authority takes
the position that the 2nd amendment is about militias and doesn't really
protect the people's right to own weapons? In other words, the 2nd amendment
doesn't really prevent the government from disarming the populace any time
it wants because there is no constitutional right for us folks to have guns.
Get real. This is a perfect ploy for the government to be able to protect
itself from an armed populace if it wants to. If you expect the government
to side with the people you're pretty naive. If the courts don't stand up
for the people's rights you better believe that the rest of the government
will take them away.


If you go back to England and look at what they
thought about the right to bear arms you find that what the American
colonists believed came from an English tradition long before they came
to
America. Tied in with the long historical belief of a right to self
defense
and to be armed as well as possible is the belief that this right is a
natural one, derived from a creator.

Without getting into the facts about common law, all that's to be said
about
that is "that's nice." Do you think they also believed you have a right to
marry and have children? If so, why did they not write it into the Bill of
Rights?

Because they had no fear of having that right taken away. And they had just
fought the world's greatest empire for eight years. Fighting wars really
brings home the importance of weapons. The 2nd amendment was put right
behind number one because of it's key importance to guaranteeing freedom.
You know the saying "free men own guns". It's pretty true if you ask me.


With a long history of believing in the
right of the people to bear arms and to self defense the American
colonists
came here believing they had that right long before it was written down
in
the constitution. You can find all kinds of writing from the time that
shows
this. Taken from a historical belief in this god given right it is very
clear that the consensus in early America was that all Americans had the
right to keep and bear arms, constitution or no constitution.

So what? What does that have to do with the Bill of Rights? If it was so
universal, why have Congress and so many states enacted restrictive gun
control laws?

Because government doesn't like an armed population. Never has. The greatest
threat to it's survival is from an armed citizenry, and they know it. Every
chance it gets every government tries to disarm its people. There are few
exceptions in history. The US used to be one of them.

If your answer it that it's because things changed, well, then, it's too
bad
the Founders didn't make explicit what you believe everyone believed.

Most people think they did. Most people, who aren't lawyers, think they
understand exactly what the 2nd amendment means. Pretty cheeky of them, huh?
They know why the 2nd amendment was written and they know what it means. The
Bill of Rights doesn't give any power to the people but it does restrict the
power of the government. Now the government would like to alter that
equasion.

When the bill
of rights was added to the constitution it was believed that this merely
confirmed what everyone already knew, and as an added protection against
the
actions of tyrannical government which may come to power. This fear of
our
own government was strong at the time and individually armed citizens
and
no
t just an organized militia, was seen as the best protection against
tyranny.

Given all that, I maintain that this belief in the right to bear arms
has
been held in common by the American people for as long as they have
lived
on
this continent. So now we come to the legalisms and nit picking of the
lawyers about what each and every word means as if the whole sentence
can
not actually be understood by the ordinary man.

I don't know many people, including experienced editors, who can give a
correct explanation of the nature of restrictions inherent in a nominative
absolute sentence. You have to really study it to know the issue. In fact,
there is an interesting (and arguable) amicus brief filed by grammarians
on
behalf of the petitioner in this very case. g

We'll have to disagree here. See, I think the intent and the meaning of the
2nd amendment is perfectly clear and unambiguous. If it meant anything other
than it's obvious meaning that would eliminate it's reason for being. I
mean, if the people believed that the right to arms was important, and we
know that they did, then why wouldn't you put that critical amendment in the
bill of rights? To leave out and not legally protect such an important right
would be foolish and the founding fathers were anything but foolish.


After all the arguments have
been heard we come again to the choice of whether the constitution means
the
militia has a right to arms or whether the people have a right to arms.
By
way of the historical beliefs of Americans regarding the topic of arms
and
of their leaders' views on the subject only one conclusion is possible;
the
2nd Amendment is meant to protect the right of the people to bear arms.

That's a non sequitur. You may know what the historical beliefs are. What
you don't know is if that's what the founders were addressing in the 2nd.
At
least partly, we know they were addressing something else.

That's the argument some people are making. Like some people argue that Iraq
still has WMDs. If you can know what the beliefs of the founders was, and
what the public opinion was about arms, I don't know how you could not know
what they meant when they wrote such a short amendment. By the way, I don't
recall militias being of any importance in the debate on the constitution or
the bill of rights. If that is true then it's likely the 2nd amendment was
not about militias but was about the people. You have to understand that
when the document says people, that is what it means. When it says We the
People you know who it is talking about. When the 2nd amendment says the
people they mean the same thing. Of course you can argue otherwise.
Especially if you have read Monty Python's book. 8-)


The
court may listen to counter arguments and may decide that there is no
right
for individuals to have their own personal arms. But they would be wrong
if
they do. Looking back at the track record of the courts in the past I
wouldn't be surprised if they do decide it wrongly. Any court that could
affirm the Dred Scott decision could do anything and I wouldn't put it
past
the current group to come up with an equally bad decision. That's
because
despite the quality of any legal arguments it will boil down to the
personal
policy preferences of the sitting justices. They will do whatever they
want
according to their political beliefs and then make complicated and
intricate
legal explanations for why they did what they wanted to all along.

Since you haven't raised a single argument opposed to the individual right
argument, even to shoot it down, it's likely you don't know what they are.
What you've written above could have come straight from the NRA, or from
Gunner's hard disk. g

Remember the story about the squirrel and the acorn? Actually, I do know the
arguments the other side puts up. I just don't think they hold any water. I
think the people making the arguments have a political agenda and are using
legal arguments and the courts to impose their views on everyone else.
Another reason why I don't use their arguments is that they simply are
meritless. Look, I've argued both sides of cases in moot court competition
so I know how to do a legal analysis. It's just that I know when one side
has a case and the other doesn't. In this case the anti individual right
side is the side that says the government has the power over the people
regarding weapons and can take them away whenever they see fit. At least
that is what happens if their side prevails. Now, if you think the founding
fathers would agree with that outcome then you really don't know anything
about the founding fathers.



If you want to understand a legal argument the first thing you do is spend
at least twice as much time studying the arguments opposed to your
position
as you do studying those that favor it. Otherwise you'll walk right into a
trap.

Thanks, but I've already had legal training. What you're not getting is that
people without a leg to stand on can and do take you to court and make the
most insane arguments. This is just such as case. I could argue the other
side for you but I'd be full of **** because I understand what the
underlying purpose of the 2nd amendment is. If you know that, then arguing
against it doesn't make any sense. This is a simple case as I said. If the
people have the individual right to bear arms then the government gets less
power over them and has to respect their power. If they don't the government
gets more power. I'm for the government having less but that's just me.


You've walked into several here, and anyone well studied and well equipped
with the data would eviscerate most of what you say, because you don't
know
what their counter arguments are. They're mostly tied up in the legal
issues. But this, after all, is a legal case.

As I said, this is not a history quiz. As I also said, I don't want to get
into a substantive debate over the 2nd. Now you can see why. I've heard
this
exact line you're preaching for close to 30 years. The main problem is
that
it's always been overwhelmed in actual federal court cases -- for good
reasons.

'Time to dig into those briefs for the petitioner, Hawke.


I would Ed, but I already know what their argument is and I'm not buying it.
I'm saying no sale. It is an individual right. It was meant to be. It'll be
better for the public if the courts decide for the people once and for all.
If they don't it's just one more brick in the wall of democracy coming down.
That wall is getting pretty weak too.

Hawke

"Hawke" wrote in message
...

snip

'Time to dig into those briefs for the petitioner, Hawke.


I would Ed, but I already know what their argument is and I'm not buying
it.
I'm saying no sale.

That's too bad. Well, you can join the grumblers out in the street while the
case is decided, then. Much of your argument is simply wrong, and the parts
that are right are well-known to the petitioners and the respondents. The
case will be decided at the top of the steps with all of your argument as a
backstory that's been around for many decades and that's already been
presented in the briefs.d I'll be watching it with great interest.

'Better brush up on the 14th, though. I've never heard anyone who knows
about it claim that *anything* is clear about the two due process clauses in
the Bill of Rights. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

'Time to dig into those briefs for the petitioner, Hawke.


I would Ed, but I already know what their argument is and I'm not buying
it.
I'm saying no sale.

That's too bad. Well, you can join the grumblers out in the street while
the
case is decided, then. Much of your argument is simply wrong, and the
parts
that are right are well-known to the petitioners and the respondents. The
case will be decided at the top of the steps with all of your argument as
a
backstory that's been around for many decades and that's already been
presented in the briefs.d I'll be watching it with great interest.




You can join in with the anti people side of the argument if you like. There
will be arguments that you can go along with making that claim. The ACLU and
the government will be glad to have your support. But I tell you what. Watch
for the court's holding when they decide the case. Unless they duck the
question it's going to come out one of two ways; either the 2nd amendment
was intended to protect the right of the public to keep and bear arms, or it
doesn't protect that right. All the briefs and all the legal arguments
aside, that is what the debate is about, and as I said, there really isn't a
legitimate debate. Because if the founding fathers didn't believe that the
right to bear arms needed protecting then they wouldn't have believed that
the right to free speech or of the press or to assemble would either.



'Better brush up on the 14th, though. I've never heard anyone who knows
about it claim that *anything* is clear about the two due process clauses
in
the Bill of Rights. d8-)


That's funny because when I was in graduate school none of my professors,
who were all lawyers, mentioned anything about the 14th amendment being in
question. That was less than five years ago BTW. If you're referring to the
court expanding federal power over the states by way of the due process
clause there may be some state arguments about what the federal government
can or can't do, but the court has allowed more and more federal control
over the states all the time. It's only a matter of time before the "power"
of the individual states is really nothing more than a fiction because the
federal government is more or less now a national government with states'
authority being merely window dressing. The 14th amendment is just the
vehicle for making this a reality.

If you are referring to another debate on the 14th then I'd ask that you
refresh my memory as to what you mean.

Hawke

In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

That's too bad. Well, you can join the grumblers out in the street while the
case is decided, then. Much of your argument is simply wrong, and the parts
that are right are well-known to the petitioners and the respondents. The
case will be decided at the top of the steps with all of your argument as a
backstory that's been around for many decades and that's already been
presented in the briefs.d I'll be watching it with great interest.

If enough people decide they dislike the decision on the top of the
steps they may decide to take the case into the streets. It would not
be the first time that gunfire changed a decision.

Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/

"Hawke" wrote in message
...

'Time to dig into those briefs for the petitioner, Hawke.


I would Ed, but I already know what their argument is and I'm not
buying
it.
I'm saying no sale.

That's too bad. Well, you can join the grumblers out in the street while
the
case is decided, then. Much of your argument is simply wrong, and the
parts
that are right are well-known to the petitioners and the respondents. The
case will be decided at the top of the steps with all of your argument as
a
backstory that's been around for many decades and that's already been
presented in the briefs.d I'll be watching it with great interest.




You can join in with the anti people side of the argument if you like.
There
will be arguments that you can go along with making that claim. The ACLU
and
the government will be glad to have your support. But I tell you what.
Watch
for the court's holding when they decide the case. Unless they duck the
question it's going to come out one of two ways; either the 2nd amendment
was intended to protect the right of the public to keep and bear arms, or
it
doesn't protect that right. All the briefs and all the legal arguments
aside, that is what the debate is about, and as I said, there really isn't
a
legitimate debate. Because if the founding fathers didn't believe that the
right to bear arms needed protecting then they wouldn't have believed that
the right to free speech or of the press or to assemble would either.

If you noticed I already predicted they will find for an individual right,
Hawke, back in one of the first messages I posted on the subject.

However, to say that it "isn't a legitimate debate," when six Circuit Courts
of Appeals have decided the right is a collective one and two Circuit Courts
of Appeals have decided it is an individual one, suggests that you believe
you know the truth and they don't -- or, as you have suggested, that your
motives are honest and theirs are dishonest. More likely, it's a matter of
them knowing far more about the history and the law involved (or their law
clerks do) and deciding on the basis of accepted jurisprudence. "It's just
that I know when one side has a case and the other doesn't," you say. How
much do you know about the case that has been made, anyway? What have you
studied that convinces you that you know better than the judges on six major
federal courts what is a case, and what isn't?

FWIW, I don't think you "know all the arguments" favoring the
militia/collective right idea, despite what you said. But I've been trying
hard not to get into a debate with you about this because I don't really
care what arguments you might make. What I'm interested in, and what people
who care about the 2nd should be interested in, is not the fortress of
self-fulfilling arguments gun owners have built to convince themselves, but
rather what arguments are being made by the petitioner and the respondent in
the case at hand, which promises to be the most significant 2nd Amendment
case in modern history. It's going to be a close call, possibly a mixed
result, and an important window on the current state of the scope of
"liberties" that will be adjudicated in substantive due process cases. It
has a lot of import and it could have a lot of consequences for all of us,
even beyond the question of the 2nd itself.

It's very tough to restrain myself from arguing with many of your
assertions. g And you're bringing up incorrect arguments in some side
issues. I had a list of citations for you concerning abortion in the Roe
case, but I deleted it because I'm not in a mood to argue Roe again. I also
had a list of quotations from Amar and others concerning the status of
substantive due process and incorporation, but I deleted that, too.

But we can dismiss a couple of these issues without getting into legal
citations. First, what you're said he

That's funny because when I was in graduate school none of my professors,
who were all lawyers, mentioned anything about the 14th amendment being in
question.

....is a very strange claim when you consider that the question of
incorporation still comes up all the time in court cases, and it is still
*selective incorporation*, which has yet to be applied to the 3rd Amendment,
the 5th Amendment, the 7th Amendment, and the ban on excessive bail and
fines in the 8th Amendment. Of course, it has not been applied, either, to
the 2nd Amendment, and it won't be applied to the 9th or 10th Amendments,
for logical reasons.

We could get into how Hugo Black proposed an all-encompassing incorporation,
which was rejected by successive Courts, but we won't. d8-) The fact is that
it is still a controversial issue; the limits of substantive due process are
still in flux; and Scalia, among others, never misses an opportunity to
stick a knife into the heart of substantive due process in its entirety.

There is some good thought in the petitioner's brief and the amici briefs. I
was hoping someone would read them and want to discuss them, but, as I said,
I've heard the standard pro-gun arguments you're making for decades and
there's nothing more left to be said about them. As far as I know, you
haven't filed a brief, so it has little to do with the case at hand. If you
had read the respondent's brief, you might have remarked with some surprise
that the attorneys for Heller have *explicitly* said they aren't asking the
Court to decide on incorporation. The case was designed specifically to
avoid it. Why? Because it's still a controversy; because the conservative
justices who are likely to be sympathetic to the basic case for an
individual right are the same ones who reject the substantive due process
extensions; and because a favorable ruling on the 2nd could well be the
result of reaching into those extensions, the very substantive due process
issues (under the 5th Amendment) that the respondent would like to have
working in their favor, while not getting into the risky territory of the
other due process issues (under the 14th Amendment) that could wind up
shooting them in the foot.

This case is far from being simple. The "yes/no" question you pose is a
chimera. You could get a "yes," and it could be rendered meaningless (except
as a philosophical point) if the Court applies a low level of scrutiny,
allowing "compelling state interest" to be broadly defined and leaving gun
control laws standing, with the door left wide open for many more. You could
get a "no, but," in which the individual right is equivocal (being based on
one reasonable conclusion drawn from Miller, for example, that there is some
kind of individual right but that it only applies to those arms an
individual needs for serving in a militia), but it could wind up producing
the ironic result of striking down any impediments to owning machine guns.

These are outliers in the range of possibility, but they illustrate that the
"yes/no" question is a problematic one. "Yes/no" isn't all that's being
decided. More relevant, it may not even be the significant issue in terms of
gun-law consequences.

That was less than five years ago BTW. If you're referring to the
court expanding federal power over the states by way of the due process
clause there may be some state arguments about what the federal government
can or can't do, but the court has allowed more and more federal control
over the states all the time. It's only a matter of time before the
"power"
of the individual states is really nothing more than a fiction because the
federal government is more or less now a national government with states'
authority being merely window dressing. The 14th amendment is just the
vehicle for making this a reality.

If you are referring to another debate on the 14th then I'd ask that you
refresh my memory as to what you mean.

Well, you've modified that somewhat from what you originally said, and which
I was referring to:

I'm familiar with Gitlow, and the application of the 14th amendment to the
states is not a yes or no. It's a yes. The interpretation is that the
amendment applies the supremecy of the federal government over the states.
All the time. That doesn't mean there aren't some lawsuits that the states
win in disputes with the federal government. But the court's ruling on
the14th amendment means that the constitution applies everywhere all the
time.

Not "everywhere." Not at all, so far, on the Amendments I refer to above.
The active doctrine is that incorporation is selective, and that it applies
only to individual issues that have been decided by the Court.

The point is that there is no standing doctrine that says "yes," except as
the Court decides each issue. There is no "yes" on habeas corpus. There is
no "yes" on grand juries. And there is no "yes" on the 2nd Amendment. The
thing about the 2nd is that there are interpretations of it that could lead
to an individual right, but not to incorporation. That's why the respondents
in this case specifically chose to avoid the issue.

Now, if you want to take issue with this and have the last word, go for it.
I'm not interested in arguing the 2nd Amendment in terms that were laid out
20 or 30 years ago. I've done that dozens of times. I am interested in the
case at hand and the way it's being argued. But that's all in the briefs.
How the Court reacts to it will be in the oral argument. The rest is just
background noise.

--
Ed Huntress

"nick hull" wrote in message
.. .
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

That's too bad. Well, you can join the grumblers out in the street while
the
case is decided, then. Much of your argument is simply wrong, and the
parts
that are right are well-known to the petitioners and the respondents. The
case will be decided at the top of the steps with all of your argument as
a
backstory that's been around for many decades and that's already been
presented in the briefs.d I'll be watching it with great interest.

If enough people decide they dislike the decision on the top of the
steps they may decide to take the case into the streets. It would not
be the first time that gunfire changed a decision.

Or they may decide to amend the Constitution, which is what the founders
arranged so people wouldn't have to resort to gunfire. This isn't a regional
issue like the Whiskey Rebellion or Shay's Rebellion. This is a national
issue. That's what amendments are for.

--
Ed Huntress

In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

If enough people decide they dislike the decision on the top of the
steps they may decide to take the case into the streets. It would not
be the first time that gunfire changed a decision.

Or they may decide to amend the Constitution, which is what the founders
arranged so people wouldn't have to resort to gunfire. This isn't a regional
issue like the Whiskey Rebellion or Shay's Rebellion. This is a national
issue. That's what amendments are for.

Amendments didn't work in 1776 where the same issue was at stake, and
are unlikely to work today when most voters are sheep on the govt dole.
It will become a civil war between those with guns and those without.

Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/

"nick hull" wrote in message
.. .
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

If enough people decide they dislike the decision on the top of the
steps they may decide to take the case into the streets. It would not
be the first time that gunfire changed a decision.

Or they may decide to amend the Constitution, which is what the founders
arranged so people wouldn't have to resort to gunfire. This isn't a
regional
issue like the Whiskey Rebellion or Shay's Rebellion. This is a national
issue. That's what amendments are for.

Amendments didn't work in 1776 where the same issue was at stake...

There was no Constitution in 1776. That's why we got one in 1789. So now we
have a Constitution that can be amended.

and are unlikely to work today when most voters are sheep on the govt
dole.
It will become a civil war between those with guns and those without.

I assume you know the outcomes of the Whiskey Rebellion and Shay's
Rebellion, right? And then there was that little rebellion in the South.

Your rebellion fantasies run up against the inconvenient fact that, in a
democratic republic, the institution you're rebelling against is a
government of the people. The people's government tends to win. In the case
of the Whiskey Rebellion, Washington assembled a militia force larger than
the entire Continental army to put down a bunch of whiskey distillers who
thought they could lead a successful rebellion against the new federal
government. But the peoples' militia proved them wrong.

Rebellion fantasizers tend to have the mistaken impression that the rest of
the people really are on their side and will join the rebellion, like
Timothy McVeigh believed a few years ago.

--
Ed Huntress

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 01:10:35 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

The rest is just
background noise.
================
This sums it up nicely.

The Constitution means what the 9 geezers say it means -- no more
and no less.

FWIW -- SCOTUS is one of the most powerful and critical functions
in our society and no mandatory annual physical/psych evaluation
is required.

You sure have given me a lot to chew on, Ed.


I would Ed, but I already know what their argument is and I'm not
buying
it.
I'm saying no sale.

That's too bad. Well, you can join the grumblers out in the street
while
the
case is decided, then. Much of your argument is simply wrong, and the
parts
that are right are well-known to the petitioners and the respondents.
The
case will be decided at the top of the steps with all of your argument
as
a
backstory that's been around for many decades and that's already been
presented in the briefs.d I'll be watching it with great interest.




You can join in with the anti people side of the argument if you like.
There
will be arguments that you can go along with making that claim. The ACLU
and
the government will be glad to have your support. But I tell you what.
Watch
for the court's holding when they decide the case. Unless they duck the
question it's going to come out one of two ways; either the 2nd
amendment
was intended to protect the right of the public to keep and bear arms,
or
it
doesn't protect that right. All the briefs and all the legal arguments
aside, that is what the debate is about, and as I said, there really
isn't
a
legitimate debate. Because if the founding fathers didn't believe that
the
right to bear arms needed protecting then they wouldn't have believed
that
the right to free speech or of the press or to assemble would either.

If you noticed I already predicted they will find for an individual right,
Hawke, back in one of the first messages I posted on the subject.

I don't recall that but to me I am not sure what they will do. They may find
it an individual right but I think they are just as likely not to. You do
know that I think there is an individual right simply by my reading of the
amendment and my knowledge of early American history.



However, to say that it "isn't a legitimate debate," when six Circuit
Courts
of Appeals have decided the right is a collective one and two Circuit
Courts
of Appeals have decided it is an individual one, suggests that you believe
you know the truth and they don't -- or, as you have suggested, that your
motives are honest and theirs are dishonest. More likely, it's a matter of
them knowing far more about the history and the law involved (or their law
clerks do) and deciding on the basis of accepted jurisprudence. "It's just
that I know when one side has a case and the other doesn't," you say. How
much do you know about the case that has been made, anyway? What have you
studied that convinces you that you know better than the judges on six
major
federal courts what is a case, and what isn't?

I reject your argument that because certain courts had a position on the
amendment that holds any weight. BTW, that's a logical fallacy of appealing
to authority. Numbers do not make one right. I also will add that my motives
are honest and I know that I can't say that about everyone else in legal
system. If I thought that the meaning and intention of the 2nd amendment was
to protect the right to hunt or the right of militias to be armed; I would
take that position. But after analyzing the facts, there is no way for me to
believe that was why that amendment was written. It simply is not rational
to believe that is why the amendment was written. As to why I think I know
better than the judges, that's because I understand how judges think and
act. As a political scientist I understand the politics of the legal system
and into the way judges make decisions. In this debate most on the "anti"
side have an anti gun agenda. In pursuing this agenda through the courts
it's clear that the only way to prevail is for the courts to accept the idea
that American citizens don't have any natural or legal right to have arms.
If you accept that the people don't have this right then it opens the door
to disarm the public, which is what the anti gun side would like to do. If
there wasn't an active, well-financed, group wanting this outcome we
wouldn't be debating the meaning of the 2nd amendment in the first place.


FWIW, I don't think you "know all the arguments" favoring the
militia/collective right idea, despite what you said. But I've been trying
hard not to get into a debate with you about this because I don't really
care what arguments you might make. What I'm interested in, and what
people
who care about the 2nd should be interested in, is not the fortress of
self-fulfilling arguments gun owners have built to convince themselves,
but
rather what arguments are being made by the petitioner and the respondent
in
the case at hand, which promises to be the most significant 2nd Amendment
case in modern history. It's going to be a close call, possibly a mixed
result, and an important window on the current state of the scope of
"liberties" that will be adjudicated in substantive due process cases. It
has a lot of import and it could have a lot of consequences for all of us,
even beyond the question of the 2nd itself.

The two "interested" sides in this issue are the pro gun groups/individuals,
who want there to be an individual right to bear arms, and the anti gun
groups/individuals who don't want there to be an individual right to bear
arms. Then there are those of us like me who are neither. We look at the
amendment itself and at the founding fathers and at what they wanted and
what the amendment actually says and was meant to do. Without having a dog
in the fight, and after looking at a very simple and understandable
amendment, my reading and understanding of it is that it was designed to
protect the people from being arbitrarily deprived of their weapons by an
overzealous or tyranical government. That is my opinion of what the
amendment is for and is why it was put there to begin with. I think this
because I am able to read and comprehend the English language, and I am
rational. Consequently, I don't need any authority to tell me what the
amendment means. And I don't acknowledge any superiority of brainpower or
knowledge that any court or judge has that means I need their help to
comprehend what the 2nd amendment means.



It's very tough to restrain myself from arguing with many of your
assertions. g And you're bringing up incorrect arguments in some side
issues. I had a list of citations for you concerning abortion in the Roe
case, but I deleted it because I'm not in a mood to argue Roe again. I
also
had a list of quotations from Amar and others concerning the status of
substantive due process and incorporation, but I deleted that, too.

Good, because we can argue over those issues until the cows come home and
that's very boring.

But we can dismiss a couple of these issues without getting into legal
citations. First, what you're said he

That's funny because when I was in graduate school none of my
professors,
who were all lawyers, mentioned anything about the 14th amendment being
in
question.

...is a very strange claim when you consider that the question of
incorporation still comes up all the time in court cases, and it is still
*selective incorporation*, which has yet to be applied to the 3rd
Amendment,
the 5th Amendment, the 7th Amendment, and the ban on excessive bail and
fines in the 8th Amendment. Of course, it has not been applied, either, to
the 2nd Amendment, and it won't be applied to the 9th or 10th Amendments,
for logical reasons.

I guess why we didn't discuss it much is because there was strong agreement
in the legal dept. that the 14th amendment applies pretty much everywhere
and that while it has not been applied that way so far, it's only a matter
of time before it will be. Incrementally, it's being applied everywhere. In
time there won't be any debate because it'll be broadly accepted as the way
things are.



We could get into how Hugo Black proposed an all-encompassing
incorporation,
which was rejected by successive Courts, but we won't. d8-) The fact is
that
it is still a controversial issue; the limits of substantive due process
are
still in flux; and Scalia, among others, never misses an opportunity to
stick a knife into the heart of substantive due process in its entirety.

No need to argue that even though in the long run Hugo's view will
eventually be the accepted one in law. It's only an issue because of the
regressive, ultra conservatives who don't want to accept the role the
government has taken in our society. As usual the conservative justices are
trying to bring the country back to the ideal days when women were chattel
and blacks were private property. They will go the way of the passenger
pidgeon but it's taking a long time for them to go, unfortunately.


There is some good thought in the petitioner's brief and the amici briefs.
I
was hoping someone would read them and want to discuss them, but, as I
said,
I've heard the standard pro-gun arguments you're making for decades and
there's nothing more left to be said about them. As far as I know, you
haven't filed a brief, so it has little to do with the case at hand. If
you
had read the respondent's brief, you might have remarked with some
surprise
that the attorneys for Heller have *explicitly* said they aren't asking
the
Court to decide on incorporation. The case was designed specifically to
avoid it. Why? Because it's still a controversy; because the conservative
justices who are likely to be sympathetic to the basic case for an
individual right are the same ones who reject the substantive due process
extensions; and because a favorable ruling on the 2nd could well be the
result of reaching into those extensions, the very substantive due process
issues (under the 5th Amendment) that the respondent would like to have
working in their favor, while not getting into the risky territory of the
other due process issues (under the 14th Amendment) that could wind up
shooting them in the foot.

The conservative justices are indeed being hoisted on their own petard.
Their right wing political views are putting them in a tough spot. Usually
when this happens they come up with some convoluted reasoning to do what
they wanted to and still come up with a tricky way of justifying it. Logical
legal reasoning isn't going to cut it. Life is hard when you have a set of
hard and fast rules and a situation comes up that they don't have answers
for. It would be so much easier if they weren't such idealogues. But then if
they weren't they wouldn't have gotten the job to begin with.


This case is far from being simple. The "yes/no" question you pose is a
chimera. You could get a "yes," and it could be rendered meaningless
(except
as a philosophical point) if the Court applies a low level of scrutiny,
allowing "compelling state interest" to be broadly defined and leaving gun
control laws standing, with the door left wide open for many more. You
could
get a "no, but," in which the individual right is equivocal (being based
on
one reasonable conclusion drawn from Miller, for example, that there is
some
kind of individual right but that it only applies to those arms an
individual needs for serving in a militia), but it could wind up producing
the ironic result of striking down any impediments to owning machine guns.

Yes, it's tough isn't it? If you say the 2nd amendment guarantees the right
of the citizens to arms that makes them a threat to the safety of everyone
in government. How do you come up with a reasoning that says people can have
guns but not the kind or enough of them to threaten the government? It would
be so much easier to say the 2nd amendment denies the public the right to be
armed. But then the consititution really makes it so clear that it does mean
that. What to do. What to do. If they were really honest arbiters of the
constitution rather than politicos the decisions would make a lot more sense
and would be a lot easier to make. They're going to **** off a lot of people
on this one no matter what they do. Maybe some of them will quit.



These are outliers in the range of possibility, but they illustrate that
the
"yes/no" question is a problematic one. "Yes/no" isn't all that's being
decided. More relevant, it may not even be the significant issue in terms
of
gun-law consequences.

Of course they can't just make it a yes or no decision. That's because they
are interested in so much more than simply what does the constitution says.
If that was all that mattered a simple yes or no would be easy. It's because
they are more interested in all the other issues than what the constitution
means that makes it difficult. In my view, all they are supposed to do is
worry about the constitutionality of a matter and not about the resulting
fallout from what they decide. The don't have the guts to just say what the
constitution says and they all have political agendas to promote that makes
deciding this case hard.


That was less than five years ago BTW. If you're referring to the
court expanding federal power over the states by way of the due process
clause there may be some state arguments about what the federal
government
can or can't do, but the court has allowed more and more federal control
over the states all the time. It's only a matter of time before the
"power"
of the individual states is really nothing more than a fiction because
the
federal government is more or less now a national government with
states'
authority being merely window dressing. The 14th amendment is just the
vehicle for making this a reality.

If you are referring to another debate on the 14th then I'd ask that you
refresh my memory as to what you mean.

Well, you've modified that somewhat from what you originally said, and
which
I was referring to:

I'm familiar with Gitlow, and the application of the 14th amendment to
the
states is not a yes or no. It's a yes. The interpretation is that the
amendment applies the supremecy of the federal government over the
states.
All the time. That doesn't mean there aren't some lawsuits that the
states
win in disputes with the federal government. But the court's ruling on
the14th amendment means that the constitution applies everywhere all the
time.

Not "everywhere." Not at all, so far, on the Amendments I refer to above.
The active doctrine is that incorporation is selective, and that it
applies
only to individual issues that have been decided by the Court.

Yes, the courts are still dragging their feet on this one. Most things have
already been decided in favor of applying the 14th to the states. How much
longer do you think it's going to take until Black's universal application
is the rule? I don't think it's a matter of if. It's a matter of when, which
is why I said that there isn't really a debate. It's going one way and one
way only and that's how it will be. It's just taking a long time to get
there.


The point is that there is no standing doctrine that says "yes," except as
the Court decides each issue. There is no "yes" on habeas corpus. There is
no "yes" on grand juries. And there is no "yes" on the 2nd Amendment. The
thing about the 2nd is that there are interpretations of it that could
lead
to an individual right, but not to incorporation. That's why the
respondents
in this case specifically chose to avoid the issue.

That's the way of the law. Nothing changes until it absolutely has to and
every nit has to be argued over endlessly. If it wasn't done like that look
how many less billable hours attorneys would be entitled to. It takes
forever to resolve legal issues and even when you think it's finally decided
someone decides to argue it some more. No wonder lawyers bill by the hour
instead of the job.

Now, if you want to take issue with this and have the last word, go for
it.
I'm not interested in arguing the 2nd Amendment in terms that were laid
out
20 or 30 years ago. I've done that dozens of times. I am interested in the
case at hand and the way it's being argued. But that's all in the briefs.
How the Court reacts to it will be in the oral argument. The rest is just
background noise.

I'm less interested in the briefs and the legal arguments because the
opposing sides are so partisan. They will make any argument over any and
every issue if they think it will help them win. They don't care about what
the constitution really means because all they want is to advance their
political goal. It's like a divorce case were all the sides care about is
getting the most money and don't give a **** about what's fair. I'm about
what is right. I think that is the nub of our debate. I'm interested in an
outcome that is right according to the actual wishes of the founding fathers
and you are more interested in who comes up with a winning legal argument in
the current proceeding. Those are quite different, not wrong just different.


If you would repost some of the links to those legal briefs I wouldn't mind
taking a look at them.

Ed Huntress

In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"nick hull" wrote in message
.. .
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

If enough people decide they dislike the decision on the top of the
steps they may decide to take the case into the streets. It would not
be the first time that gunfire changed a decision.

Or they may decide to amend the Constitution, which is what the founders
arranged so people wouldn't have to resort to gunfire. This isn't a
regional
issue like the Whiskey Rebellion or Shay's Rebellion. This is a national
issue. That's what amendments are for.

Amendments didn't work in 1776 where the same issue was at stake...

There was no Constitution in 1776. That's why we got one in 1789. So now we
have a Constitution that can be amended.

In 1776 we had a bill of rights, it was called the Magna Carta.

and are unlikely to work today when most voters are sheep on the govt
dole.
It will become a civil war between those with guns and those without.

I assume you know the outcomes of the Whiskey Rebellion and Shay's
Rebellion, right? And then there was that little rebellion in the South.

Your rebellion fantasies run up against the inconvenient fact that, in a
democratic republic, the institution you're rebelling against is a
government of the people. The people's government tends to win. In the case
of the Whiskey Rebellion, Washington assembled a militia force larger than
the entire Continental army to put down a bunch of whiskey distillers who
thought they could lead a successful rebellion against the new federal
government. But the peoples' militia proved them wrong.

Rebellion fantasizers tend to have the mistaken impression that the rest of
the people really are on their side and will join the rebellion, like
Timothy McVeigh believed a few years ago.

I agree rebellions are usually a bad idea, but if you push people far
enough someone is going to try it. Any rebellion today would have to be
secret to have any chance of success; political assasinations, smart
roadside bombs, cell structure or even dispersed leadership. It would
be like nothing ever seen before. I do know there are secret groups
making plans and accumulating supplies but do not expect to see any
action until inflation becomes ruinous (or some other national crisis).
The 'people' will not join a revolution until it is seen as a done deal,
most of them will be unaware there is even a rebellion going on until
very late in the game. A developed country, as you realize, has
sufficient military might to crush anything it can find so the type of
insurrection as seen in 3rd world countries would not work here.

Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/

"nick hull" wrote in message
.. .
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"nick hull" wrote in message
.. .
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

If enough people decide they dislike the decision on the top of the
steps they may decide to take the case into the streets. It would
not
be the first time that gunfire changed a decision.

Or they may decide to amend the Constitution, which is what the
founders
arranged so people wouldn't have to resort to gunfire. This isn't a
regional
issue like the Whiskey Rebellion or Shay's Rebellion. This is a
national
issue. That's what amendments are for.

Amendments didn't work in 1776 where the same issue was at stake...

There was no Constitution in 1776. That's why we got one in 1789. So now
we
have a Constitution that can be amended.

In 1776 we had a bill of rights, it was called the Magna Carta.

Nick, I think the point is being missed here. And the point is that now we
have an amendment process that makes it unnecessary for you to go shoot
everybody if you don't like a Supreme Court decision. If enough people
agree, we just amend the Constitution. We've done it dozens of times.


and are unlikely to work today when most voters are sheep on the govt
dole.
It will become a civil war between those with guns and those without.

I assume you know the outcomes of the Whiskey Rebellion and Shay's
Rebellion, right? And then there was that little rebellion in the South.

Your rebellion fantasies run up against the inconvenient fact that, in a
democratic republic, the institution you're rebelling against is a
government of the people. The people's government tends to win. In the
case
of the Whiskey Rebellion, Washington assembled a militia force larger
than
the entire Continental army to put down a bunch of whiskey distillers who
thought they could lead a successful rebellion against the new federal
government. But the peoples' militia proved them wrong.

Rebellion fantasizers tend to have the mistaken impression that the rest
of
the people really are on their side and will join the rebellion, like
Timothy McVeigh believed a few years ago.

I agree rebellions are usually a bad idea, but if you push people far
enough someone is going to try it. Any rebellion today would have to be
secret to have any chance of success; political assasinations, smart
roadside bombs, cell structure or even dispersed leadership. It would
be like nothing ever seen before. I do know there are secret groups
making plans and accumulating supplies but do not expect to see any
action until inflation becomes ruinous (or some other national crisis).
The 'people' will not join a revolution until it is seen as a done deal,
most of them will be unaware there is even a rebellion going on until
very late in the game. A developed country, as you realize, has
sufficient military might to crush anything it can find so the type of
insurrection as seen in 3rd world countries would not work here.

That's nice. Enjoy your rebellion fantasies, Nick. When we hang you for
treason, there will be plenty of people begging to pull the lever. As Tim
McVeigh learned, the large majority of people don't believe that rebellions
are justified under an amendable Constitution.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
"nick hull" wrote in message
.. .
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"nick hull" wrote in message
.. .
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

If enough people decide they dislike the decision on the top of the
steps they may decide to take the case into the streets. It would
not
be the first time that gunfire changed a decision.
Or they may decide to amend the Constitution, which is what the
founders
arranged so people wouldn't have to resort to gunfire. This isn't a
regional
issue like the Whiskey Rebellion or Shay's Rebellion. This is a
national
issue. That's what amendments are for.
Amendments didn't work in 1776 where the same issue was at stake...
There was no Constitution in 1776. That's why we got one in 1789. So now
we
have a Constitution that can be amended.
In 1776 we had a bill of rights, it was called the Magna Carta.

Nick, I think the point is being missed here. And the point is that now we
have an amendment process that makes it unnecessary for you to go shoot
everybody if you don't like a Supreme Court decision. If enough people
agree, we just amend the Constitution. We've done it dozens of times.

and are unlikely to work today when most voters are sheep on the govt
dole.
It will become a civil war between those with guns and those without.
I assume you know the outcomes of the Whiskey Rebellion and Shay's
Rebellion, right? And then there was that little rebellion in the South.

Your rebellion fantasies run up against the inconvenient fact that, in a
democratic republic, the institution you're rebelling against is a
government of the people. The people's government tends to win. In the
case
of the Whiskey Rebellion, Washington assembled a militia force larger
than
the entire Continental army to put down a bunch of whiskey distillers who
thought they could lead a successful rebellion against the new federal
government. But the peoples' militia proved them wrong.

Rebellion fantasizers tend to have the mistaken impression that the rest
of
the people really are on their side and will join the rebellion, like
Timothy McVeigh believed a few years ago.
I agree rebellions are usually a bad idea, but if you push people far
enough someone is going to try it. Any rebellion today would have to be
secret to have any chance of success; political assasinations, smart
roadside bombs, cell structure or even dispersed leadership. It would
be like nothing ever seen before. I do know there are secret groups
making plans and accumulating supplies but do not expect to see any
action until inflation becomes ruinous (or some other national crisis).
The 'people' will not join a revolution until it is seen as a done deal,
most of them will be unaware there is even a rebellion going on until
very late in the game. A developed country, as you realize, has
sufficient military might to crush anything it can find so the type of
insurrection as seen in 3rd world countries would not work here.

That's nice. Enjoy your rebellion fantasies, Nick. When we hang you for
treason, there will be plenty of people begging to pull the lever. As Tim
McVeigh learned, the large majority of people don't believe that rebellions
are justified under an amendable Constitution.

On the other hand, Montana may secede:

"Various Montana politicians have signed a resolution arguing that
anything other than an individual-right interpretation of the Second
Amendment ... would violate the compact between Montana and the U.S."

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/125075.html

I like those guys - may have to relocate

"Rex" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"nick hull" wrote in message
.. .
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"nick hull" wrote in message
.. .
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

If enough people decide they dislike the decision on the top of the
steps they may decide to take the case into the streets. It would
not
be the first time that gunfire changed a decision.
Or they may decide to amend the Constitution, which is what the
founders
arranged so people wouldn't have to resort to gunfire. This isn't a
regional
issue like the Whiskey Rebellion or Shay's Rebellion. This is a
national
issue. That's what amendments are for.
Amendments didn't work in 1776 where the same issue was at stake...
There was no Constitution in 1776. That's why we got one in 1789. So
now we
have a Constitution that can be amended.
In 1776 we had a bill of rights, it was called the Magna Carta.

Nick, I think the point is being missed here. And the point is that now
we have an amendment process that makes it unnecessary for you to go
shoot everybody if you don't like a Supreme Court decision. If enough
people agree, we just amend the Constitution. We've done it dozens of
times.

and are unlikely to work today when most voters are sheep on the govt
dole.
It will become a civil war between those with guns and those without.
I assume you know the outcomes of the Whiskey Rebellion and Shay's
Rebellion, right? And then there was that little rebellion in the
South.

Your rebellion fantasies run up against the inconvenient fact that, in
a
democratic republic, the institution you're rebelling against is a
government of the people. The people's government tends to win. In the
case
of the Whiskey Rebellion, Washington assembled a militia force larger
than
the entire Continental army to put down a bunch of whiskey distillers
who
thought they could lead a successful rebellion against the new federal
government. But the peoples' militia proved them wrong.

Rebellion fantasizers tend to have the mistaken impression that the
rest of
the people really are on their side and will join the rebellion, like
Timothy McVeigh believed a few years ago.
I agree rebellions are usually a bad idea, but if you push people far
enough someone is going to try it. Any rebellion today would have to be
secret to have any chance of success; political assasinations, smart
roadside bombs, cell structure or even dispersed leadership. It would
be like nothing ever seen before. I do know there are secret groups
making plans and accumulating supplies but do not expect to see any
action until inflation becomes ruinous (or some other national crisis).
The 'people' will not join a revolution until it is seen as a done deal,
most of them will be unaware there is even a rebellion going on until
very late in the game. A developed country, as you realize, has
sufficient military might to crush anything it can find so the type of
insurrection as seen in 3rd world countries would not work here.

That's nice. Enjoy your rebellion fantasies, Nick. When we hang you for
treason, there will be plenty of people begging to pull the lever. As Tim
McVeigh learned, the large majority of people don't believe that
rebellions are justified under an amendable Constitution.

On the other hand, Montana may secede:

"Various Montana politicians have signed a resolution arguing that
anything other than an individual-right interpretation of the Second
Amendment ... would violate the compact between Montana and the U.S."

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/125075.html

I like those guys - may have to relocate

Ha-ha! Is that "Dixie" I hear them whistling? d8-)

I'm sure that any court, anywhere, would declare the "compact" moot. As a
condition of statehood they had to declare that they would adhere to the US
Constitution -- including amendments, Supreme Court decisions, etc. Where
their constitution conflicts with the current Court declarations of the US
Constitution, the supremacy clause comes into effect: the US Constitution
trumps.

But it's an entertaining idea.

--
Ed Huntress

snipped - to show that it really can be done...

On the other hand, Montana may secede:

"Various Montana politicians have signed a resolution arguing that
anything other than an individual-right interpretation of the Second
Amendment ... would violate the compact between Montana and the U.S."

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/125075.html

I like those guys - may have to relocate


Ha-ha! Is that "Dixie" I hear them whistling? d8-)

I'm sure that any court, anywhere, would declare the "compact" moot. As a
condition of statehood they had to declare that they would adhere to the US
Constitution -- including amendments, Supreme Court decisions, etc. Where
their constitution conflicts with the current Court declarations of the US
Constitution, the supremacy clause comes into effect: the US Constitution
trumps.

But it's an entertaining idea.

--
Ed Huntress



We had the same fantasy here in Texas when I was a kid.

As the only state that was an independent nation it was a fun fantasy to
play with. But civics class in high school ruined the whole thing!

Darned education...


Richard

"cavelamb himself" wrote in message
...
snipped - to show that it really can be done...

On the other hand, Montana may secede:

"Various Montana politicians have signed a resolution arguing that
anything other than an individual-right interpretation of the Second
Amendment ... would violate the compact between Montana and the U.S."

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/125075.html

I like those guys - may have to relocate


Ha-ha! Is that "Dixie" I hear them whistling? d8-)

I'm sure that any court, anywhere, would declare the "compact" moot. As a
condition of statehood they had to declare that they would adhere to the
US Constitution -- including amendments, Supreme Court decisions, etc.
Where their constitution conflicts with the current Court declarations of
the US Constitution, the supremacy clause comes into effect: the US
Constitution trumps.

But it's an entertaining idea.

--
Ed Huntress

We had the same fantasy here in Texas when I was a kid.

As the only state that was an independent nation it was a fun fantasy to
play with. But civics class in high school ruined the whole thing!

Darned education...


Richard

Yeah, the facts of history take the glory and thrill out of a lot of things.
We had a fantasy about Texas, too. We thought maybe Mexico would pay pretty
well if we sold it back to them.

(Only kidding. We thought cowboys were pretty cool, actually.)

--
Ed Huntress

On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 09:29:00 -0600, Rex wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:
"nick hull" wrote in message
.. .
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"nick hull" wrote in message
.. .
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

If enough people decide they dislike the decision on the top of the
steps they may decide to take the case into the streets. It would
not
be the first time that gunfire changed a decision.
Or they may decide to amend the Constitution, which is what the
founders
arranged so people wouldn't have to resort to gunfire. This isn't a
regional
issue like the Whiskey Rebellion or Shay's Rebellion. This is a
national
issue. That's what amendments are for.
Amendments didn't work in 1776 where the same issue was at stake...
There was no Constitution in 1776. That's why we got one in 1789. So now
we
have a Constitution that can be amended.
In 1776 we had a bill of rights, it was called the Magna Carta.

Nick, I think the point is being missed here. And the point is that now we
have an amendment process that makes it unnecessary for you to go shoot
everybody if you don't like a Supreme Court decision. If enough people
agree, we just amend the Constitution. We've done it dozens of times.

and are unlikely to work today when most voters are sheep on the govt
dole.
It will become a civil war between those with guns and those without.
I assume you know the outcomes of the Whiskey Rebellion and Shay's
Rebellion, right? And then there was that little rebellion in the South.

Your rebellion fantasies run up against the inconvenient fact that, in a
democratic republic, the institution you're rebelling against is a
government of the people. The people's government tends to win. In the
case
of the Whiskey Rebellion, Washington assembled a militia force larger
than
the entire Continental army to put down a bunch of whiskey distillers who
thought they could lead a successful rebellion against the new federal
government. But the peoples' militia proved them wrong.

Rebellion fantasizers tend to have the mistaken impression that the rest
of
the people really are on their side and will join the rebellion, like
Timothy McVeigh believed a few years ago.
I agree rebellions are usually a bad idea, but if you push people far
enough someone is going to try it. Any rebellion today would have to be
secret to have any chance of success; political assasinations, smart
roadside bombs, cell structure or even dispersed leadership. It would
be like nothing ever seen before. I do know there are secret groups
making plans and accumulating supplies but do not expect to see any
action until inflation becomes ruinous (or some other national crisis).
The 'people' will not join a revolution until it is seen as a done deal,
most of them will be unaware there is even a rebellion going on until
very late in the game. A developed country, as you realize, has
sufficient military might to crush anything it can find so the type of
insurrection as seen in 3rd world countries would not work here.

That's nice. Enjoy your rebellion fantasies, Nick. When we hang you for
treason, there will be plenty of people begging to pull the lever. As Tim
McVeigh learned, the large majority of people don't believe that rebellions
are justified under an amendable Constitution.

On the other hand, Montana may secede:

"Various Montana politicians have signed a resolution arguing that
anything other than an individual-right interpretation of the Second
Amendment ... would violate the compact between Montana and the U.S."

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/125075.html

I like those guys - may have to relocate

If Montana goes, its likely Idaho, and the Dakotas will also.

There is a flourishing arms industry growing in Sturgis among other
places.

In fact, there are quite a number of Western states that would pull
the plug as well. The very long term war between the Feds and the
Western states is hardly over, and would simply provide further
reasons to bail out of the Union.

It would be interesting to see how many corporations and industries
that would move to those states, just for the banking and tax
advantages alone.

Anyone envision the Hildabitch or Comrade Obama in the role of Abe
Lincoln?

Gunner

On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 11:26:57 -0600, cavelamb himself
wrote:

snipped - to show that it really can be done...

On the other hand, Montana may secede:

"Various Montana politicians have signed a resolution arguing that
anything other than an individual-right interpretation of the Second
Amendment ... would violate the compact between Montana and the U.S."

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/125075.html

I like those guys - may have to relocate


Ha-ha! Is that "Dixie" I hear them whistling? d8-)

I'm sure that any court, anywhere, would declare the "compact" moot. As a
condition of statehood they had to declare that they would adhere to the US
Constitution -- including amendments, Supreme Court decisions, etc. Where
their constitution conflicts with the current Court declarations of the US
Constitution, the supremacy clause comes into effect: the US Constitution
trumps.

But it's an entertaining idea.

--
Ed Huntress



We had the same fantasy here in Texas when I was a kid.

As the only state that was an independent nation it was a fun fantasy to
play with. But civics class in high school ruined the whole thing!

Darned education...


Richard

I wonder if anyone would care to point out the portions of the
Constition and so forth, where states are forbidden to bail out of a
tyrannical Union?

That rat******* Lincoln used the Might is Right model, because there
was no such prohibition to be found.

Gunner

In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

I agree rebellions are usually a bad idea, but if you push people far
enough someone is going to try it. Any rebellion today would have to be
secret to have any chance of success; political assasinations, smart
roadside bombs, cell structure or even dispersed leadership. It would
be like nothing ever seen before. I do know there are secret groups
making plans and accumulating supplies but do not expect to see any
action until inflation becomes ruinous (or some other national crisis).
The 'people' will not join a revolution until it is seen as a done deal,
most of them will be unaware there is even a rebellion going on until
very late in the game. A developed country, as you realize, has
sufficient military might to crush anything it can find so the type of
insurrection as seen in 3rd world countries would not work here.

That's nice. Enjoy your rebellion fantasies, Nick. When we hang you for
treason, there will be plenty of people begging to pull the lever. As Tim
McVeigh learned, the large majority of people don't believe that rebellions
are justified under an amendable Constitution.

I'm way too old to even think about rebellion myself, but there are
going to be some young people who will feel they are being cornered by
gun control, inflation and no social security. Beware of those who have
nothing to lose, they are the most dangerous. I'm retired and living on
pensions & SS and can survive when they run out.

As you say, when someone revolts there will be plenty of people willing
to pull the lever, but that cuts both ways. There will be enough
willing to pull the trigger, especially if they believe they will never
be identified. It's that intractable difference of opinion that will
bring on a civil war, and I have no idea if it will be next year or in a
hundred years. When it starts it will be difficult to stop. No system
lasts forever, there will be revolutions and invasions and secessions
eventually.

Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/

Gunner wrote:

On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 11:26:57 -0600, cavelamb himself
wrote:


snipped - to show that it really can be done...

On the other hand, Montana may secede:

"Various Montana politicians have signed a resolution arguing that
anything other than an individual-right interpretation of the Second
Amendment ... would violate the compact between Montana and the U.S."

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/125075.html

I like those guys - may have to relocate


Ha-ha! Is that "Dixie" I hear them whistling? d8-)

I'm sure that any court, anywhere, would declare the "compact" moot. As a
condition of statehood they had to declare that they would adhere to the US
Constitution -- including amendments, Supreme Court decisions, etc. Where
their constitution conflicts with the current Court declarations of the US
Constitution, the supremacy clause comes into effect: the US Constitution
trumps.

But it's an entertaining idea.

--
Ed Huntress



We had the same fantasy here in Texas when I was a kid.

As the only state that was an independent nation it was a fun fantasy to
play with. But civics class in high school ruined the whole thing!

Darned education...


Richard


I wonder if anyone would care to point out the portions of the
Constition and so forth, where states are forbidden to bail out of a
tyrannical Union?

That rat******* Lincoln used the Might is Right model, because there
was no such prohibition to be found.

Gunner


In the case of Texas, the agreement was that we can split up into as
many as seven additional states - if desired - in orger to counteact
and voting advantage of the northern counties - oh, sorry - states.

However...
If the western states were to actually thimb their noses at the union
I'd bet my boots they would find a surprising amount of support from
Texans (if not Texas itself).

But, would that ever really happen?

What's to gain - what's to lose?