OT- 2nd Amendment IS an individual right-Officially

wrote:


militia
me.
has
No interpretation is necessary. This isn't a matter of opinion. It's a matter of fact. When the DOJ says: "The Constitution's other references to 'rights' of 'the people,' noted above, cannot plausibly be construed as referring to the 'Militia,'" they're trying to separate the militia from the right conferred by the Second. They say it cannot plausibly be construed as referring to the Militia. How more concise do they have to be to make their point?
-- Ed Huntress

degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling

nothing for which he is willing to fight,

miserable creature and has no chance of being

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 13:04:07 -0500, "Ed Huntress"

You are pretty good at taking things out of context. Kudos to you.
Gunner
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." - John Stewart Mill
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

to
the
as
their
It's not out of context, Gunner. There's a whole section in that memorandum devoted to it. It even has its own subhead: "The Limits of Prefatory Language." The subject is an argument that the militia phrase does not impinge on the wholly independent RKBA; in fact, that it has no legal consequence at all, except if the "operant" part of the statement is ambiguous. And they then say it isn't ambiguous.
I don't understand how you could miss that point. It's essential to getting the Second treated as an individual right that would be protected against state laws. Without it, the dilemma is that the states still have (nominal) authority over the militias, and thus, over the RKBA. That's how it was before the Civil War, when these things were matters of states' rights. It's also how it is today, in the case of the Second, because the Second has never been incorporated under the 14th.
The memo reads like any argument presented in a Supreme Court case. They cover every base they can think of, and let the Court decide which right is being abridged. <g> The arguments often can seem contradictory in that sense because, as with this example, they make a case for the militia being every man in the country, and then say that the militia has nothing to do with it.
If you read other Court arguments, or amicus curie briefs, you'll see that same pattern over and over again.
-- Ed Huntress
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
there's this about the 2nd ammendment: remember Waco. Koresh and his boys had lotsa automatic weapons. The LEO knew that, so they called in the dudes with Tanks. You gonna buy tanks too? Hello? Owning assault weapons is false security. The only thing that protects your right to own a fire arm, and defend your own with it, is the consent of your local voters, who will sit on a jury in case you are ever in court with it.
I own a 12 guage pump. I know where the hacksaw is. If I need more than that, I'll need more friends.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Too bad they never found any automatic weapons that anyone besides the prosecution ever saw.

Dont live out West, do you?
Here, a 300 Win Mag is about right for when the boogers are out at 800-1200 meters.
Gunner
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." - John Stewart Mill
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

it.
%%%% I own 4 of them. 2 have 20" open cylinder barrels.
If I need more than

%%%% I have more of both.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 03:59:21 -0500, "Ed Huntress"

Of course the above mentioned weapons are appropriate for militia useage. As would fighter aircraft, armored vehicles and warships and in fact, as Ive stated, armed vehicles were used by militia forces during the time of the framing of the the Constitution. Or are you making the claim that radio, tv, telephone and high speed printing presses are not covered under the 1st amendment, only podiums and Gutenberg style single sheet presses would be? "the sword and every other terrible instrument of the solder." ring a bell?

The court did NOT rule the sawed off shotgun to NOT be a proper militia tool. It stated it didnt know one way or another and remanded it back to a lower court to find out. As it in fact WAS used extensively in warfare, including in the trenches of WW1, it is historically a weapon used in war, and hence, a proper militia weapon and protected. Miller disappeared and the lower court dropped the case at that point so there was no finding.
Gunner
"Gunner, you are the same ridiculous liberal f--k you ever where." Scipio < snipped-for-privacy@actd.net
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

end?
Ok, so a Vulcan, which you'd have to carry to your militia duty in a pickup truck, is appropriate for militia useage. Why not a Davy Crockett missile with nuclear warhead? It's a heck of a lot smaller and easier to carry.
That's the question. If you have no problem with a Vulcan, why do you get upset about a Davy Crockett?

case
correct
DO
in
get
That has nothing to do with the point. The point is that, in the Miller case, the Court was evaluating a 2nd Amendment claim on the basis of whether the gun was appropriate for militia use. If that's the fulcrum of deciding such a case, then the Court's statements support the idea that the 2nd's protections are based on the ability to arm a militia.
That's why I said to be careful about what you wish for. If the militia issue remains as the deciding factor, then it undercuts what the DOJ's memo attempts to do, which is to divorce the individual right from anything to do with the militia. That flies in the face of Miller.
That is to say, it flies in the face of the dicta often quoted from Miller.
Using Miller to defend an individual right over the heads of the states is self-defeating, in other words.
--
Ed Huntress
(remove "3" from email address for email reply)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

bad
pickup
that
the
whether
memo
do
Miller.
Ed, This is all something of a non issue in the end in any event unless I am mistaken. Get an FFL and you can legally buy and own very nearly anything. You must also go through the appropriate state licensing procedure but in the end I don't think that a persistent buyer would be denied. Is this not correct? A clear example of government "taking our guns away" is Australia. That isn't happening in the US and the only ones suggesting this be done are a small group on the very fringe. This entire argument seems to me to devolve to licensing and is not therefore a constitutional issue at all. Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong - a simple yes or no will do as I really couldn't care less about the fine points you folks seem to love to argue ad nauseum. This is really a bunch of politically motivated crap is it not?
--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No, an FFL alone is going to do it. And nothing will get you a nuclear-armed Davy Crockett man-transportable missile. It's covered by other laws and even by international law. But, if you follow the logic of the 2nd Amendment holy-rollers, preventing you from owning any military arm -- at least, a "personal"-sized arm -- would be a violation of the 2nd. They usually get antsy when someone brings up soccer-ball-sized nuclear weapons. <g>

as
to
it
The 2nd is a very important legal dilemma for our entire system of jurisprudence. It goes 'way beyond questions of licensing. As Stanley Levinson suggested by the title of his well-known book, it's "The Embarrassing Second Amendment." For an amateur student of the Constitution like me, it's interesting for several reasons and I once made a pretty good study of it. A lot of scholarship about it has been done since I was reading it, and the result is a real beehive of buzzing going on right now among Constitutional scholars and the courts. It's gone well beyond the issues that were raised 15 or 20 years ago, and the courts are caught on the horns of a real Constitutional dilemma, between principles of jurisprudence (see the brief definition of "stare decisis," http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s065.htm ) and extensive scholarship concerning the intent of the Founders over the 2nd Amendment (the DOJ memo we're discussing, for example. It's 98 pages long or I'd suggest that you read it. I don't. <g>)
As for political motivation, I'd say it goes more to the cultural divide that has been such an important topic in the last couple of elections. It reflects two different views of our society, and they generally parallel the red/blue schism. Not exactly, but roughly. There is well-reasoned, well-researched argument on both sides, although it tends to get buried in the b.s. For an outstanding argument in favor of the right to armed personal defense, for example, see an article titled "A Nation of Cowards." It's all over the Web.
But, as you doubtless can see, the issue also is full of stuff written by half-assed amateurs and polemicists. It drives me up a wall, because serious students of it could have a hell of a good discussion about the issues, and what it means for the direction our society is taking. But it's undermined by the crap, which is coming from both sides.
I always run out of steam in these discussions, and I'm about out now. Trying to argue with the endless cut-and-paste b.s. from the gun blogs is exhausting and time-consuming. So my feeling is that the b.s. isn't going to be stopped. You can't reason with it because of the awesome throw-weight of the ill-founded crap that people like Gunner can just cut-and-paste, endlessly. Shoot down one myth, and there are ten more to replace it at the click of a few keystrokes. Now Gunner is referring to Harlan's "pinprick" comments (without knowing he's doing so) and claiming that they constitute support for the 2nd by the Rehnquist court. Jesus Christ, who the hell wrote that? It's all over the web now, pasted from one gun blog to the next.
Anyway, you can't get serious about this in NGs, so I'm bowing out before the tsunami of bullshit drowns us all. Maybe sometime I'll post what I actually think about the meaning of the 2nd and we'll see if I can start a fire by spontaneous combustion. <g>
-- Ed Huntress
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I wouldn't blame you for opting out, at least in this forum. This is a great place to be partisan and a horrible place to search for underlying truths. I think that if the gun issue were as important in general as it is frequently presented we would be clarifying the 2nd with an amendment that removed all doubt. I would hazard a guess that the gun lobby REALLY wouldn't want that, at least now they can make an argument in support of their claim. If we can get the Pres. behind something as silly as an amendment banning gay marriage ( a genuine states rights issue - NOT a federal one ) we ought to be able to easily move something as important as an update of the 2nd. The only exception related to the utility of this group is machining related topics. Contrary to what has been posted recently, you get excellent and valuable assistance from the participants here any time you post on topic. Posters selflessly take the time to be helpful and in some cases the time involved is significant. I must have a hundred or more posts archived that are works of educational art and must have taken considerable time to distill years of experience down to a cogent and useful format. Maybe this helps explain the ratio of OT posting. A quick search will frequently yield up an old Kirk Gordon or KG post that covers the base in question ten times over. And they are just two of the prolific ones. Many other contributors lack Kirks verbotosizer but make a valuable contribution none the less and were it not for the OT posts most wouldn't continue to look in at all over the long run. The wars keep people coming back just to see who is left standing and end up being useful as a consequence.
--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

great
Ah, I'm talking about opting out of lengthy Second Amendment discussions, not out of the newsgroup. <g>
This issue is strange to discuss online, or even in person, because most of the people who are interested in it come to it in the first place looking for support for an idea they already have -- usually pro-gun, but always partisan. It's always been a subject on which it was easier to find partisan arguments than objective scholarship. In fact, there is almost no objective, modern, well-informed scholarship about it in existence. The few exceptions include Sanford Levinson's article in the _Yale Law Journal_ some years back ("The Embarrassing Second Amendment"), and Laurence Tribe's second edition of _American Constitutional Law_, published in the late '90s. Other than that, it's pretty much a vast wasteland for a student who wants a balanced view.
Which makes me an odd-man-out in these discussions, because my interest in the Constitution began when I was a political science student in college. I started looking at it from an academic angle and never changed my approach. I have no interest in practicing law so I never thought in terms of making arguments from it, except for a year or two each side of 1990, when we were fighting our "assault rifle" legal battles here in NJ. I wrote pro-gun editorials in those days. I neither became angry nor enthralled with Robert Bork. He's just another interesting, very smart character in the political history of the Court.
And all of that leaves me as stranded as a beached whale when I try to discuss it, because, while I generally agree with the individual-rights argument, and I see a core of timelessness in the Second, I despise the misleading, half-assed legal arguments that get written by blowhards (the blogsters) and thinly-disguised partisans posing as academic purists (Kleck, Kopel, John Lott, etc.), which get passed around and treated as gospel by people who don't have enough background in Constitutional law to know when they're being led down a primrose path. They have mountains of misleading crap to cut-and-paste into these discussions, which makes it all but impossible for any intelligence to work its way to the top. You really can't have a friendly and informative exchange of ideas and information about it today, with almost anyone on either side. They know tons of anecdotes and details, but not how it all works. So they grumble about how stupid or malicious the Justices are, because they don't really know what the Justices have to work with, nor what the consequences of one doctrine or another would be.
Anyway, enough of that.

wouldn't
claim.
ought
Good luck. Nobody wants it unless it's on their terms. The Supreme Court hasn't shown any inclination to want to decide it, and I haven't heard anything about a new amendment in the works.
But it would be a good idea if it could happen. It's such a source of anger and distrust that it undermines the understanding of the Court, and an appreciation of how well it's served us overall.

related
I agree.

The ratio of OT posting seems to be related to how much people have to say at any given time about machining. There was a string of threads about reviving CNC machines from the '80s and even beyond a while back. It's hard to get passionate about it...except for Hamei, maybe. d8-)
--
Ed Huntress
(remove "3" from email address for email reply)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 17:40:22 GMT, "J. R. Carroll"

Not a California gun owner eh John? SKS Sporter is an example. Google is your friend.
Gunner
Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low-stress, nonaddictive, gender-neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or the secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious or secular persuasions and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all.
May you have a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling, and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2005, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make the world great, and without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith, political belief, choice of computer platform, or sexual preference of the wishee.
By accepting this greeting you are accepting these terms. This greeting is subject to clarification or withdrawal. It is freely transferable with no alteration to the original greeting. It implies no promise by the wisher to actually implement any of the wishes for herself or himself or others, is void where prohibited by law, and is revocable at the sole discretion of the wisher. This wish is under warranty to perform as expected within the usual application of good tidings for a period of one year, or until the issuance of a subsequent holiday greeting, whichever comes first, and the warranty is limited to replacement of this wish or issuance of a new wish at the sole discretion of the wisher.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

In fact, I am. I don't know why you would own a wanna be when you can get the real thing but that is a matter of personal choice. I know a couple of guys with model 74 Kalashnikovs and they are perfectly legal. One of them is even in your beloved Santa Monica, and before you correct me they are 74's not 47's. From Afghanistan if I'm not mistaken. I also noticed that you have snipped something relevant so I will refresh your memory. I wrote:
"Get an FFL and you can legally buy and own very nearly anything. You must also go through the appropriate state licensing procedure but in the end I don't think that a persistent buyer would be denied. Is this not correct? A clear example of government "taking our guns away" is Australia. That isn't happening in the US and the only ones suggesting this be done are a small group on the very fringe."
Ed pointed out that the states have no interest if you meet the federal requirement an I will take his word for it.
--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

a
Uh, then I either mistated something or you misunderstood. Many states have tighter restrictions on full-auto firearms (machine guns and true assault rifles, such as the AK-74 that you mention) than those of the federal government. Here in NJ, for example, you can't buy one. There are roughly 100 of them in private hands here, grandfathered in from the past, but no sales have been allowed for decades, either of new ones or old ones.
-- Ed Huntress
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

That
are
get
perfectly
I'm
refresh
must
I
correct?
a
have
Exactly, I did say:

a
They actively collected and destroyed an entire class of fire arm. Crushed them all up. We grandfather things in. All manner of hardware changes hands in CA if you have the proper legal council and enough money.
OTOH, I may well have misunderstood you Ed and I wouldn't deny it. I just don't care very much about it and would think that with the big swing into the red that Gunner proclaims an amendment to the constitution would be no problemo for those that do care deeply. I can't wait to see a politician signing up for something that will specifically guarantee any citizen in the land the right to own a ZSU battery, SAW, or even an AK. I kinda think a real big percentage of the inhabitants would prefer that their neighbors not have a case of fragmentation grenades laying about either. Of course, it's OK for me but I have always thought the neighbor strange, and come to think of it I believe he finds me a bit odd as well. Guess I'll have to rough it without the H.E. around to defend myself. How is it again that grandma defends her one bedroom apartment with a grenade? A little hard on the porch light wouldn't you think?
--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

This is the crux of much of the popular, if not the legal, argument. The question is whether the FFs, or even the popular opinion at the time, would have been based on such an absolute principle if there were commonly available such things as select-fire assault rifles, machine guns, shoulder-fired missiles, or even 10-round-capacity handguns. If a militiaman was required to show up with only 20 balls and 2 flints, I don't think they were anticipating spray-fire into restaurant crowds.
I'll let the 2nd Amendment holy rollers argue that one on their own. I think most of the country agrees with you, which is why, although a majority supports a RKBA, they also favor restrictions on the types of arms that can be owned.
Apparently even Gunner has his limits. I haven't heard a reply from him about why we can't own Davy Crockett missiles. <g>
--
Ed Huntress
(remove "3" from email address for email reply)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

There may be a reason that he's skirting that particular issue. That possibility is very disquieting to me....
Jim
--
==================================================
please reply to:
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

If you see me with a dosimeter in my shirt pocket..its only an artifact I found out in the street. Really. Trust me on this.
Gunner
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." - John Stewart Mill
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

LOL.
For a while I worked at the univ. of WI's nuclear physics department, designing and building instrumentation. Part of the job included installing stuff inside the source rooms of their van de Graaff machine - and because some of the stuff in there (mostly in the target rooms) was hot, we all had to wear film badges.
One grad student made up his mind that they were simply tossing the badges away monthly, rather than having them checked. I'm not sure what drew him to that conclusion.
Anyway he left his badge inside the target room during a run, and at the end of the month it went off with the lot of them. Turns out a) they were checking them, and b) his 'test' triggered some kind of DOE audit of the facility. His instructors were NOT pleased....
Jim
--
==================================================
please reply to:
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.