If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#2131
|
|||
|
|||
There is no constitutional right...
It being a dull day, I decide to respond to what Gunner
foisted Fri, 30 Jul 2004 03:25:37 GMT on misc.survivalism , viz: On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 20:13:31 -0600, "John P. Mullen" wrote: gruhn wrote: So you think you have a constitutional right to own everything in the US military arsenal? Amazing. Why is this amazing? People think all sorts of things. Can you give an answer that doesn't boil down to "because it scares me"? Because with owning a weapon comes the responsibility to see it doesn't fall into the wring hands. While most people can manage a few small arms, only a few can safeguard a tank. John Mullen **** John..where the hell did you get THAT stupid idea? Padlocks work just fine for safeguarding a tank. And there are other minor tricks you can do to disable any piece of heavy equipment. Distributor caps, or equivalent. tschus pyotr -- pyotr filipivich "Do not argue with the forces of nature, for you are small, insignificant, and biodegradable." --multiplaza.nl.nu-- post Subject: Paris Notes (2) From: lid ) Newsgroups: rec.travel.europe Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: newsSync (Multiplaza) 387214 References: On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 04:29:14 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote: Donna Evleth writes: I know this. But Europeans do not always know this. So that is why I appended the "as in native Americans," to distinguish from Indians from |
#2132
|
|||
|
|||
There is no constitutional right...
On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 21:17:28 -0600, "John P. Mullen"
wrote: At the time of its writing, those arms were essentially the same as hunting weapons. No. I’ve never hunted squirrels with my 8 pounder cannon. It would be fun to try, I suppose. And, individuals did not possess eight pounder cannon, either. Ah..yes they did. Along with warships etc etc States do have militias with considerable weaponry, but most of us do not have the resources to have most kinds of weapon. The whole PHILOSOPHY was that the states provide the vast majority of the military of the United States, with the federal government providing a core cadre and standardization in weapons in training. You are confusing the militia with the National Guard. Ah...no. The militia is included in the Constitution. The NG was formed in 1907 Which is exactly why the ACLU is so important in the USA. The ACLU, as pointed out in another thread, has contempt for the right to keep and bear arms. The ACLU’s apparent goal as revealed by their actions is to pervert the constitution to the point of absurdity so as to cause the downfall of the United States. Well not the ACLU around here. It doesn’t matter where the ACLU is, their goal is the same. No, it isn't. As long as Congress writes laws which require citizens to sue to get their rights, we will need an organization like the ACLU. Otherwise, there will only be justice for the wealthy. snip The left wing has perverted the courts by putting socialist willing to lie and do whatever else they need to do to pervert the constitution. The founders knew that this could happen; the anti-federalist predicted this very problem. That is why we have the second amendment. And, what sort of perversions do you have in mind? See, for example, Miller, which made stupid assumptions about the kinds of arms recognized as protected by the second amendment that are not in the constitution. Well, the state also has a duty to protect its citizens. A sawed-off shotgun is a favorite of criminals. There is the “right” to not be offended, which is a perversion of the constitution. The right to not be offended does not exist. What offends you is your own problem. The use of offensive speech often is a precursor or a reminder of more substantial acts. That is, it is a form of intimidation. Because offensive speech is closely linked with discrimination, it is often taken as evidence that discrimination exists. It is not, in itself illegal. There is the “right” to force others to associate with you, against their wishes. This was a gross perversion of the interstate commerce clause to force local business NOT to discriminate on the basis of race or whatever. People who participate in a commercial system have a right to share it its benefits. Anything less is economic slavery. If people want to run a business, they have a duty to serve all the public, within reason. There is no guarantee in the Constitution of any merchant's right to refuse to serve on the basis you suggest. Sure there is. The right to free association. There is the “right” to all kinds of government entitlements, and entitlement being all those things to which no individual is entitled to as a right. The Constitution does not require any such entitlements, but does require that distribution of such entitlements be without regard to race or ethnicity. No..it doesnt. It only says that all are equal under the law. The right of every citizen to an effective legal defense and a fair trial? Ah yeah. The lawyer full employment act. So, you would not mind if some government bozo decided to arrest you and hold you in prison for an indefinite period of time without being charged or ... Habious Corpus (sp) is legal tenet of our legal system. Wait a minute. That's what is happening now. I'll just check back after it happens to you. The right of non-Christians to expect the same legal treatment as "Christians?" Ah yes, the right to not be offended by Christian symbols and names! It won’t be long before you people force San Francisco to be come just “Francisco” because the word San is Spanish for saint and that offends you. You’ve already disposed of the cross on the seal of the city of Los Angles (the Angles), which was there because L.A. was founded as a Catholic mission. That kind of legal treatment, the fictional right to not be offended. Well, our city logo consists of three crosses and the ACLU has made it clear to us that they do not have a problem with that. However, there was a local who said for years that he would get the ACLU to force a change. He was very embarrassed when they refused to take up the case. See City of Los Angeles and the tiny white cross. What I find offensive is the idea that people who are Christian have a greater right to the benefits of being a US citizen. These symbols can play a part in this attitude. By having these symbols maintained. and possibly paid for by, tax money, which the state collects under duress from all citizens, regardless of religious belief, is not Constitutional. For one, it violates the separation of Church and state. No it doesnt. Now, I've heard this type of hysterical argument before, but if you look at what is actually being challenged and banned, it is of the sort I described above. John Mullen "In my humble opinion, the petty carping levied against Bush by the Democrats proves again, it is better to have your eye plucked out by an eagle than to be nibbled to death by ducks." - Norman Liebmann --multiplaza.nl.nu-- |
#2133
|
|||
|
|||
There is no constitutional right...
On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 22:09:27 -0600, "John P. Mullen"
wrote: Gunner wrote: On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 20:13:31 -0600, "John P. Mullen" wrote: gruhn wrote: So you think you have a constitutional right to own everything in the US military arsenal? Amazing. Why is this amazing? People think all sorts of things. Can you give an answer that doesn't boil down to "because it scares me"? Because with owning a weapon comes the responsibility to see it doesn't fall into the wring hands. While most people can manage a few small arms, only a few can safeguard a tank. John Mullen **** John..where the hell did you get THAT stupid idea? Padlocks work just fine for safeguarding a tank. Gunner Let me know when you plan to fit your tank with a padlock. This is one thing I'd like to see. John Mullen Its called a hasp. Anyone with a welder can do a proper job out of it. And in fact..IRRC, most are so equipped to be secured with a lock. Gunner "In my humble opinion, the petty carping levied against Bush by the Democrats proves again, it is better to have your eye plucked out by an eagle than to be nibbled to death by ducks." - Norman Liebmann --multiplaza.nl.nu-- |
#2134
|
|||
|
|||
There is no constitutional right...
On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 21:17:28 -0600, "John P. Mullen"
wrote: At the time of its writing, those arms were essentially the same as hunting weapons. No. I’ve never hunted squirrels with my 8 pounder cannon. It would be fun to try, I suppose. And, individuals did not possess eight pounder cannon, either. Ah..yes they did. Along with warships etc etc States do have militias with considerable weaponry, but most of us do not have the resources to have most kinds of weapon. The whole PHILOSOPHY was that the states provide the vast majority of the military of the United States, with the federal government providing a core cadre and standardization in weapons in training. You are confusing the militia with the National Guard. Ah...no. The militia is included in the Constitution. The NG was formed in 1907 Which is exactly why the ACLU is so important in the USA. The ACLU, as pointed out in another thread, has contempt for the right to keep and bear arms. The ACLU’s apparent goal as revealed by their actions is to pervert the constitution to the point of absurdity so as to cause the downfall of the United States. Well not the ACLU around here. It doesn’t matter where the ACLU is, their goal is the same. No, it isn't. As long as Congress writes laws which require citizens to sue to get their rights, we will need an organization like the ACLU. Otherwise, there will only be justice for the wealthy. snip The left wing has perverted the courts by putting socialist willing to lie and do whatever else they need to do to pervert the constitution. The founders knew that this could happen; the anti-federalist predicted this very problem. That is why we have the second amendment. And, what sort of perversions do you have in mind? See, for example, Miller, which made stupid assumptions about the kinds of arms recognized as protected by the second amendment that are not in the constitution. Well, the state also has a duty to protect its citizens. A sawed-off shotgun is a favorite of criminals. There is the “right” to not be offended, which is a perversion of the constitution. The right to not be offended does not exist. What offends you is your own problem. The use of offensive speech often is a precursor or a reminder of more substantial acts. That is, it is a form of intimidation. Because offensive speech is closely linked with discrimination, it is often taken as evidence that discrimination exists. It is not, in itself illegal. There is the “right” to force others to associate with you, against their wishes. This was a gross perversion of the interstate commerce clause to force local business NOT to discriminate on the basis of race or whatever. People who participate in a commercial system have a right to share it its benefits. Anything less is economic slavery. If people want to run a business, they have a duty to serve all the public, within reason. There is no guarantee in the Constitution of any merchant's right to refuse to serve on the basis you suggest. Sure there is. The right to free association. There is the “right” to all kinds of government entitlements, and entitlement being all those things to which no individual is entitled to as a right. The Constitution does not require any such entitlements, but does require that distribution of such entitlements be without regard to race or ethnicity. No..it doesnt. It only says that all are equal under the law. The right of every citizen to an effective legal defense and a fair trial? Ah yeah. The lawyer full employment act. So, you would not mind if some government bozo decided to arrest you and hold you in prison for an indefinite period of time without being charged or ... Habious Corpus (sp) is legal tenet of our legal system. Wait a minute. That's what is happening now. I'll just check back after it happens to you. The right of non-Christians to expect the same legal treatment as "Christians?" Ah yes, the right to not be offended by Christian symbols and names! It won’t be long before you people force San Francisco to be come just “Francisco” because the word San is Spanish for saint and that offends you. You’ve already disposed of the cross on the seal of the city of Los Angles (the Angles), which was there because L.A. was founded as a Catholic mission. That kind of legal treatment, the fictional right to not be offended. Well, our city logo consists of three crosses and the ACLU has made it clear to us that they do not have a problem with that. However, there was a local who said for years that he would get the ACLU to force a change. He was very embarrassed when they refused to take up the case. See City of Los Angeles and the tiny white cross. What I find offensive is the idea that people who are Christian have a greater right to the benefits of being a US citizen. These symbols can play a part in this attitude. By having these symbols maintained. and possibly paid for by, tax money, which the state collects under duress from all citizens, regardless of religious belief, is not Constitutional. For one, it violates the separation of Church and state. No it doesnt. Now, I've heard this type of hysterical argument before, but if you look at what is actually being challenged and banned, it is of the sort I described above. John Mullen "In my humble opinion, the petty carping levied against Bush by the Democrats proves again, it is better to have your eye plucked out by an eagle than to be nibbled to death by ducks." - Norman Liebmann --multiplaza.nl.nu-- |
#2135
|
|||
|
|||
There is no constitutional right...
On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 21:17:28 -0600, "John P. Mullen"
wrote: At the time of its writing, those arms were essentially the same as hunting weapons. No. I’ve never hunted squirrels with my 8 pounder cannon. It would be fun to try, I suppose. And, individuals did not possess eight pounder cannon, either. Ah..yes they did. Along with warships etc etc States do have militias with considerable weaponry, but most of us do not have the resources to have most kinds of weapon. The whole PHILOSOPHY was that the states provide the vast majority of the military of the United States, with the federal government providing a core cadre and standardization in weapons in training. You are confusing the militia with the National Guard. Ah...no. The militia is included in the Constitution. The NG was formed in 1907 Which is exactly why the ACLU is so important in the USA. The ACLU, as pointed out in another thread, has contempt for the right to keep and bear arms. The ACLU’s apparent goal as revealed by their actions is to pervert the constitution to the point of absurdity so as to cause the downfall of the United States. Well not the ACLU around here. It doesn’t matter where the ACLU is, their goal is the same. No, it isn't. As long as Congress writes laws which require citizens to sue to get their rights, we will need an organization like the ACLU. Otherwise, there will only be justice for the wealthy. snip The left wing has perverted the courts by putting socialist willing to lie and do whatever else they need to do to pervert the constitution. The founders knew that this could happen; the anti-federalist predicted this very problem. That is why we have the second amendment. And, what sort of perversions do you have in mind? See, for example, Miller, which made stupid assumptions about the kinds of arms recognized as protected by the second amendment that are not in the constitution. Well, the state also has a duty to protect its citizens. A sawed-off shotgun is a favorite of criminals. There is the “right” to not be offended, which is a perversion of the constitution. The right to not be offended does not exist. What offends you is your own problem. The use of offensive speech often is a precursor or a reminder of more substantial acts. That is, it is a form of intimidation. Because offensive speech is closely linked with discrimination, it is often taken as evidence that discrimination exists. It is not, in itself illegal. There is the “right” to force others to associate with you, against their wishes. This was a gross perversion of the interstate commerce clause to force local business NOT to discriminate on the basis of race or whatever. People who participate in a commercial system have a right to share it its benefits. Anything less is economic slavery. If people want to run a business, they have a duty to serve all the public, within reason. There is no guarantee in the Constitution of any merchant's right to refuse to serve on the basis you suggest. Sure there is. The right to free association. There is the “right” to all kinds of government entitlements, and entitlement being all those things to which no individual is entitled to as a right. The Constitution does not require any such entitlements, but does require that distribution of such entitlements be without regard to race or ethnicity. No..it doesnt. It only says that all are equal under the law. The right of every citizen to an effective legal defense and a fair trial? Ah yeah. The lawyer full employment act. So, you would not mind if some government bozo decided to arrest you and hold you in prison for an indefinite period of time without being charged or ... Habious Corpus (sp) is legal tenet of our legal system. Wait a minute. That's what is happening now. I'll just check back after it happens to you. The right of non-Christians to expect the same legal treatment as "Christians?" Ah yes, the right to not be offended by Christian symbols and names! It won’t be long before you people force San Francisco to be come just “Francisco” because the word San is Spanish for saint and that offends you. You’ve already disposed of the cross on the seal of the city of Los Angles (the Angles), which was there because L.A. was founded as a Catholic mission. That kind of legal treatment, the fictional right to not be offended. Well, our city logo consists of three crosses and the ACLU has made it clear to us that they do not have a problem with that. However, there was a local who said for years that he would get the ACLU to force a change. He was very embarrassed when they refused to take up the case. See City of Los Angeles and the tiny white cross. What I find offensive is the idea that people who are Christian have a greater right to the benefits of being a US citizen. These symbols can play a part in this attitude. By having these symbols maintained. and possibly paid for by, tax money, which the state collects under duress from all citizens, regardless of religious belief, is not Constitutional. For one, it violates the separation of Church and state. No it doesnt. Now, I've heard this type of hysterical argument before, but if you look at what is actually being challenged and banned, it is of the sort I described above. John Mullen "In my humble opinion, the petty carping levied against Bush by the Democrats proves again, it is better to have your eye plucked out by an eagle than to be nibbled to death by ducks." - Norman Liebmann --multiplaza.nl.nu-- |
#2136
|
|||
|
|||
There is no constitutional right...
On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 22:09:27 -0600, "John P. Mullen"
wrote: Gunner wrote: On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 20:13:31 -0600, "John P. Mullen" wrote: gruhn wrote: So you think you have a constitutional right to own everything in the US military arsenal? Amazing. Why is this amazing? People think all sorts of things. Can you give an answer that doesn't boil down to "because it scares me"? Because with owning a weapon comes the responsibility to see it doesn't fall into the wring hands. While most people can manage a few small arms, only a few can safeguard a tank. John Mullen **** John..where the hell did you get THAT stupid idea? Padlocks work just fine for safeguarding a tank. Gunner Let me know when you plan to fit your tank with a padlock. This is one thing I'd like to see. John Mullen Its called a hasp. Anyone with a welder can do a proper job out of it. And in fact..IRRC, most are so equipped to be secured with a lock. Gunner "In my humble opinion, the petty carping levied against Bush by the Democrats proves again, it is better to have your eye plucked out by an eagle than to be nibbled to death by ducks." - Norman Liebmann --multiplaza.nl.nu-- |
#2137
|
|||
|
|||
There is no constitutional right...
On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 22:09:27 -0600, "John P. Mullen"
wrote: Gunner wrote: On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 20:13:31 -0600, "John P. Mullen" wrote: gruhn wrote: So you think you have a constitutional right to own everything in the US military arsenal? Amazing. Why is this amazing? People think all sorts of things. Can you give an answer that doesn't boil down to "because it scares me"? Because with owning a weapon comes the responsibility to see it doesn't fall into the wring hands. While most people can manage a few small arms, only a few can safeguard a tank. John Mullen **** John..where the hell did you get THAT stupid idea? Padlocks work just fine for safeguarding a tank. Gunner Let me know when you plan to fit your tank with a padlock. This is one thing I'd like to see. John Mullen Its called a hasp. Anyone with a welder can do a proper job out of it. And in fact..IRRC, most are so equipped to be secured with a lock. Gunner "In my humble opinion, the petty carping levied against Bush by the Democrats proves again, it is better to have your eye plucked out by an eagle than to be nibbled to death by ducks." - Norman Liebmann --multiplaza.nl.nu-- |
#2138
|
|||
|
|||
There is no constitutional right...
On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 22:18:56 -0600, "John P. Mullen"
wrote: Gunner wrote: On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 20:10:49 -0600, "John P. Mullen" wrote: The constitution states citizens have a right to bear arms, but does not state that they have a right to the same arms the government has. Yes it does. Your claim..point out exactly where you think the right to same arms as the military is invalid. Then Ill rip it to shreds with citations. Double dog dare you. Gunner Now, you may have citations to support your contention, but that does not change the fact that the Constitution states only that one has the right to bear arms, not particular arms. John Mullen http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel060701.shtml The dominant line of nineteenth-century interpretation protected ownership only of weapons suitable for "civilized warfare." This standard was adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1939 United States v. Miller case. There, the Court allowed defendants who never claimed to be part of any militia (they were bootleggers) to raise a Second Amendment claim. But the Supreme Court rejected the trial court's determination that a federal law requiring the registration and taxation of sawed-off shotguns was facially invalid as a violation of the Second Amendment. Rather, said the Miller Court, a weapon is only covered by the Second Amendment if it might contribute to the efficiency of a well-regulated militia. And the Court could not take judicial notice of militia uses for sawed-off shotguns. The case was remanded for trial (at which the defendants could have offered evidence that sawed-off shotguns have utility in a militia context), but the trial was never held, since the defendants disappeared during the pendency of the government's appeal of the dismissal of their indictment. A minority line of nineteenth-century arms-rights analysis — adopted in the twentieth century, for example, by the Oregon Supreme Court — goes further. This analysis protects not just militia-type weapons, but also weapons which are useful for personal defense, even if not useful in a military context. Thus, the Oregon state constitution's right to arms was held to protect possession of billy clubs and switchblades — weapons which were pointedly excluded from protection by the civilized warfare cases. State v. Delgado, 298 Or. 395, 692 P.2d 610 (1984)(switchblades); State v. Blocker, 291 Or. 255 (1981) (billy clubs). With the civilized-warfare test as the constitutional minimum, efforts to ban machine guns or ordinary guns that look like machine guns (so-called "assault weapons") appear constitutionally dubious. These rifles are selected for prohibition because gun-control lobbies claim that the rifles are "weapons of war." This claim, if true, amounts to an admission that the rifles lie at the core of the Second Amendment. Today, once people understand that "assault weapons" are firearms that are cosmetically threatening but functionally indistinguishable from other long guns, they are willing to accord these arms a place within the right to keep and bear arms. Machine guns, in contrast, really are functionally different. Machine guns are rarely used in crime; and lawfully possessed machine guns, which must be registered with the federal government, are essentially absent from the world of gun crime. Nevertheless, even many people who consider themselves strong Second Amendment supporters cannot bear the thought of a constitutional right to own machine guns. Attorney Stephen Halbrook, suggests that, "artillery pieces, tanks, nuclear devices and other heavy ordinances are not constitutionally protected" arms, nor are "grenades, bombs, bazookas and other devices … which have never been commonly possessed for self-defense." (Steven Halbrook, What the Framers Intended: A Linguistic Interpretation of the Second Amendment, 49 L. & CONTEMP. PROB. at 153 (1986).) But the Halbrook test sidesteps the fact that militia uses, not just personal-defense uses, are part of the core of the Second Amendment. Moreover, the Halbrook test could allow governments to ban new types of guns or weapons, since those weapons, being new, "have never been commonly possessed for self-defense." The test could allow Second Amendment technology to be frozen, as if the government claimed that new communications devices are unprotected by the First Amendment because they have never (heretofore) been commonly used for speech. Just as the civilized-warfare test protects firearms that many persons want excluded from the Second Amendment, the test also excludes firearms that many persons want to be included. The civilized-warfare cases protected large handguns, but in some applications excluded small, highly concealable handguns. This would suggest that modern bans on small, inexpensive handguns might not violate the Second Amendment. On the other hand, small handguns such as the Colt .25 pistol were used by the United States military during the Second World War. (See Charles W. Pate, "Researching the Martial .25 Colt Pistol," Man at Arms, Jan./Feb. 1995, 20-29.) (Of course, anyone using the civilized-warfare test to make such an argument must also accept the flip side of the civilized-warfare coin: "Assault weapon" prohibition is plainly unconstitutional.) The nineteenth-century minority theory, however, would recognize small, relatively inexpensive handguns as highly suitable for personal defense, and accord them Second Amendment protection regardless of their militia utility. Twentieth-century constitutional law reflects a special concern for problems of minorities and the poor that was not present in nineteenth-century law. Since a small handgun may be the only effective means of protection that is affordable to a poor person, and since the poor and minorities tend to receive inferior police protection, modern equal-protection analysis might find some problems with banning inexpensive guns, even if one sets aside the Second Amendment. (Note, Markus T. Funk, The Melting Point Case-in-Point, 85 J. CRIM. L. & CRIMINOL. 764 (1995).) But under the main nineteenth-century line of cases, opponents of banning small handguns must overcome the presumption in those cases that small handguns are not suitable militia weapons; perhaps the frequent and successful use of small handguns in twentieth-century partisan warfare against the Nazis and other oppressive regimes offers one potential line of argument. Twenty-first century jurisprudence might update the civilized-warfare test by changing the focus from the military to the police. The modern American police, especially at the federal level, resemble in many regards the standing army that so concerned the founders. While the American army is geared toward overseas warfare, the police are oriented toward the type of internal-order functions (e.g., suppression of riots), which were among traditional militia duties. Accordingly, the twenty-first century question, "What are suitable militia-type arms?" might be answered, "Arms that are typical of, or suitable for, police duty." By the modernized test, high-quality handguns (both revolvers and semiautomatics) would lie at the core. Smaller, less expensive handguns (frequently carried by police officers as back-up weapons, often in ankle holsters) would also pass the test easily. Ordinary shotguns and rifles (often carried in patrol cars) would also be protected. Machine guns and other weapons of war are not currently ordinary police equipment, although they are becoming common in special attack units. Finally, we need to remember Noah Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language, originally published in 1828. That dictionary, which is closer to the origin of the Second Amendment than any other American dictionary, defines "arms" as follows: "Weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body .... A stand of arms consists of a musket, bayonet, cartridge-box and belt, with a sword. But for common soldiers a sword is not necessary." Webster's definition offers two useful insights. First, the distinction sometimes drawn between "offensive" and "defensive" weapons is of little value. All weapons are made for offense, although they may used for defensive purposes (i.e. shooting someone who is attempting to perpetrate a murder), since the best defense sometimes really is a good offense. Second, Webster reminds us that "arms" are not just weapons. "Arms" also include defensive armor. This suggests very serious constitutional problems with proposals to outlaw possession of bullet-resistant body armor by persons outside the government. http://www.constitution.org/mil/maltrad.htm "In my humble opinion, the petty carping levied against Bush by the Democrats proves again, it is better to have your eye plucked out by an eagle than to be nibbled to death by ducks." - Norman Liebmann --multiplaza.nl.nu-- |
#2139
|
|||
|
|||
There is no constitutional right...
On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 22:18:56 -0600, "John P. Mullen"
wrote: Gunner wrote: On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 20:10:49 -0600, "John P. Mullen" wrote: The constitution states citizens have a right to bear arms, but does not state that they have a right to the same arms the government has. Yes it does. Your claim..point out exactly where you think the right to same arms as the military is invalid. Then Ill rip it to shreds with citations. Double dog dare you. Gunner Now, you may have citations to support your contention, but that does not change the fact that the Constitution states only that one has the right to bear arms, not particular arms. John Mullen http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel060701.shtml The dominant line of nineteenth-century interpretation protected ownership only of weapons suitable for "civilized warfare." This standard was adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1939 United States v. Miller case. There, the Court allowed defendants who never claimed to be part of any militia (they were bootleggers) to raise a Second Amendment claim. But the Supreme Court rejected the trial court's determination that a federal law requiring the registration and taxation of sawed-off shotguns was facially invalid as a violation of the Second Amendment. Rather, said the Miller Court, a weapon is only covered by the Second Amendment if it might contribute to the efficiency of a well-regulated militia. And the Court could not take judicial notice of militia uses for sawed-off shotguns. The case was remanded for trial (at which the defendants could have offered evidence that sawed-off shotguns have utility in a militia context), but the trial was never held, since the defendants disappeared during the pendency of the government's appeal of the dismissal of their indictment. A minority line of nineteenth-century arms-rights analysis — adopted in the twentieth century, for example, by the Oregon Supreme Court — goes further. This analysis protects not just militia-type weapons, but also weapons which are useful for personal defense, even if not useful in a military context. Thus, the Oregon state constitution's right to arms was held to protect possession of billy clubs and switchblades — weapons which were pointedly excluded from protection by the civilized warfare cases. State v. Delgado, 298 Or. 395, 692 P.2d 610 (1984)(switchblades); State v. Blocker, 291 Or. 255 (1981) (billy clubs). With the civilized-warfare test as the constitutional minimum, efforts to ban machine guns or ordinary guns that look like machine guns (so-called "assault weapons") appear constitutionally dubious. These rifles are selected for prohibition because gun-control lobbies claim that the rifles are "weapons of war." This claim, if true, amounts to an admission that the rifles lie at the core of the Second Amendment. Today, once people understand that "assault weapons" are firearms that are cosmetically threatening but functionally indistinguishable from other long guns, they are willing to accord these arms a place within the right to keep and bear arms. Machine guns, in contrast, really are functionally different. Machine guns are rarely used in crime; and lawfully possessed machine guns, which must be registered with the federal government, are essentially absent from the world of gun crime. Nevertheless, even many people who consider themselves strong Second Amendment supporters cannot bear the thought of a constitutional right to own machine guns. Attorney Stephen Halbrook, suggests that, "artillery pieces, tanks, nuclear devices and other heavy ordinances are not constitutionally protected" arms, nor are "grenades, bombs, bazookas and other devices … which have never been commonly possessed for self-defense." (Steven Halbrook, What the Framers Intended: A Linguistic Interpretation of the Second Amendment, 49 L. & CONTEMP. PROB. at 153 (1986).) But the Halbrook test sidesteps the fact that militia uses, not just personal-defense uses, are part of the core of the Second Amendment. Moreover, the Halbrook test could allow governments to ban new types of guns or weapons, since those weapons, being new, "have never been commonly possessed for self-defense." The test could allow Second Amendment technology to be frozen, as if the government claimed that new communications devices are unprotected by the First Amendment because they have never (heretofore) been commonly used for speech. Just as the civilized-warfare test protects firearms that many persons want excluded from the Second Amendment, the test also excludes firearms that many persons want to be included. The civilized-warfare cases protected large handguns, but in some applications excluded small, highly concealable handguns. This would suggest that modern bans on small, inexpensive handguns might not violate the Second Amendment. On the other hand, small handguns such as the Colt .25 pistol were used by the United States military during the Second World War. (See Charles W. Pate, "Researching the Martial .25 Colt Pistol," Man at Arms, Jan./Feb. 1995, 20-29.) (Of course, anyone using the civilized-warfare test to make such an argument must also accept the flip side of the civilized-warfare coin: "Assault weapon" prohibition is plainly unconstitutional.) The nineteenth-century minority theory, however, would recognize small, relatively inexpensive handguns as highly suitable for personal defense, and accord them Second Amendment protection regardless of their militia utility. Twentieth-century constitutional law reflects a special concern for problems of minorities and the poor that was not present in nineteenth-century law. Since a small handgun may be the only effective means of protection that is affordable to a poor person, and since the poor and minorities tend to receive inferior police protection, modern equal-protection analysis might find some problems with banning inexpensive guns, even if one sets aside the Second Amendment. (Note, Markus T. Funk, The Melting Point Case-in-Point, 85 J. CRIM. L. & CRIMINOL. 764 (1995).) But under the main nineteenth-century line of cases, opponents of banning small handguns must overcome the presumption in those cases that small handguns are not suitable militia weapons; perhaps the frequent and successful use of small handguns in twentieth-century partisan warfare against the Nazis and other oppressive regimes offers one potential line of argument. Twenty-first century jurisprudence might update the civilized-warfare test by changing the focus from the military to the police. The modern American police, especially at the federal level, resemble in many regards the standing army that so concerned the founders. While the American army is geared toward overseas warfare, the police are oriented toward the type of internal-order functions (e.g., suppression of riots), which were among traditional militia duties. Accordingly, the twenty-first century question, "What are suitable militia-type arms?" might be answered, "Arms that are typical of, or suitable for, police duty." By the modernized test, high-quality handguns (both revolvers and semiautomatics) would lie at the core. Smaller, less expensive handguns (frequently carried by police officers as back-up weapons, often in ankle holsters) would also pass the test easily. Ordinary shotguns and rifles (often carried in patrol cars) would also be protected. Machine guns and other weapons of war are not currently ordinary police equipment, although they are becoming common in special attack units. Finally, we need to remember Noah Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language, originally published in 1828. That dictionary, which is closer to the origin of the Second Amendment than any other American dictionary, defines "arms" as follows: "Weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body .... A stand of arms consists of a musket, bayonet, cartridge-box and belt, with a sword. But for common soldiers a sword is not necessary." Webster's definition offers two useful insights. First, the distinction sometimes drawn between "offensive" and "defensive" weapons is of little value. All weapons are made for offense, although they may used for defensive purposes (i.e. shooting someone who is attempting to perpetrate a murder), since the best defense sometimes really is a good offense. Second, Webster reminds us that "arms" are not just weapons. "Arms" also include defensive armor. This suggests very serious constitutional problems with proposals to outlaw possession of bullet-resistant body armor by persons outside the government. http://www.constitution.org/mil/maltrad.htm "In my humble opinion, the petty carping levied against Bush by the Democrats proves again, it is better to have your eye plucked out by an eagle than to be nibbled to death by ducks." - Norman Liebmann --multiplaza.nl.nu-- |
#2140
|
|||
|
|||
There is no constitutional right...
On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 22:18:56 -0600, "John P. Mullen"
wrote: Gunner wrote: On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 20:10:49 -0600, "John P. Mullen" wrote: The constitution states citizens have a right to bear arms, but does not state that they have a right to the same arms the government has. Yes it does. Your claim..point out exactly where you think the right to same arms as the military is invalid. Then Ill rip it to shreds with citations. Double dog dare you. Gunner Now, you may have citations to support your contention, but that does not change the fact that the Constitution states only that one has the right to bear arms, not particular arms. John Mullen http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel060701.shtml The dominant line of nineteenth-century interpretation protected ownership only of weapons suitable for "civilized warfare." This standard was adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1939 United States v. Miller case. There, the Court allowed defendants who never claimed to be part of any militia (they were bootleggers) to raise a Second Amendment claim. But the Supreme Court rejected the trial court's determination that a federal law requiring the registration and taxation of sawed-off shotguns was facially invalid as a violation of the Second Amendment. Rather, said the Miller Court, a weapon is only covered by the Second Amendment if it might contribute to the efficiency of a well-regulated militia. And the Court could not take judicial notice of militia uses for sawed-off shotguns. The case was remanded for trial (at which the defendants could have offered evidence that sawed-off shotguns have utility in a militia context), but the trial was never held, since the defendants disappeared during the pendency of the government's appeal of the dismissal of their indictment. A minority line of nineteenth-century arms-rights analysis — adopted in the twentieth century, for example, by the Oregon Supreme Court — goes further. This analysis protects not just militia-type weapons, but also weapons which are useful for personal defense, even if not useful in a military context. Thus, the Oregon state constitution's right to arms was held to protect possession of billy clubs and switchblades — weapons which were pointedly excluded from protection by the civilized warfare cases. State v. Delgado, 298 Or. 395, 692 P.2d 610 (1984)(switchblades); State v. Blocker, 291 Or. 255 (1981) (billy clubs). With the civilized-warfare test as the constitutional minimum, efforts to ban machine guns or ordinary guns that look like machine guns (so-called "assault weapons") appear constitutionally dubious. These rifles are selected for prohibition because gun-control lobbies claim that the rifles are "weapons of war." This claim, if true, amounts to an admission that the rifles lie at the core of the Second Amendment. Today, once people understand that "assault weapons" are firearms that are cosmetically threatening but functionally indistinguishable from other long guns, they are willing to accord these arms a place within the right to keep and bear arms. Machine guns, in contrast, really are functionally different. Machine guns are rarely used in crime; and lawfully possessed machine guns, which must be registered with the federal government, are essentially absent from the world of gun crime. Nevertheless, even many people who consider themselves strong Second Amendment supporters cannot bear the thought of a constitutional right to own machine guns. Attorney Stephen Halbrook, suggests that, "artillery pieces, tanks, nuclear devices and other heavy ordinances are not constitutionally protected" arms, nor are "grenades, bombs, bazookas and other devices … which have never been commonly possessed for self-defense." (Steven Halbrook, What the Framers Intended: A Linguistic Interpretation of the Second Amendment, 49 L. & CONTEMP. PROB. at 153 (1986).) But the Halbrook test sidesteps the fact that militia uses, not just personal-defense uses, are part of the core of the Second Amendment. Moreover, the Halbrook test could allow governments to ban new types of guns or weapons, since those weapons, being new, "have never been commonly possessed for self-defense." The test could allow Second Amendment technology to be frozen, as if the government claimed that new communications devices are unprotected by the First Amendment because they have never (heretofore) been commonly used for speech. Just as the civilized-warfare test protects firearms that many persons want excluded from the Second Amendment, the test also excludes firearms that many persons want to be included. The civilized-warfare cases protected large handguns, but in some applications excluded small, highly concealable handguns. This would suggest that modern bans on small, inexpensive handguns might not violate the Second Amendment. On the other hand, small handguns such as the Colt .25 pistol were used by the United States military during the Second World War. (See Charles W. Pate, "Researching the Martial .25 Colt Pistol," Man at Arms, Jan./Feb. 1995, 20-29.) (Of course, anyone using the civilized-warfare test to make such an argument must also accept the flip side of the civilized-warfare coin: "Assault weapon" prohibition is plainly unconstitutional.) The nineteenth-century minority theory, however, would recognize small, relatively inexpensive handguns as highly suitable for personal defense, and accord them Second Amendment protection regardless of their militia utility. Twentieth-century constitutional law reflects a special concern for problems of minorities and the poor that was not present in nineteenth-century law. Since a small handgun may be the only effective means of protection that is affordable to a poor person, and since the poor and minorities tend to receive inferior police protection, modern equal-protection analysis might find some problems with banning inexpensive guns, even if one sets aside the Second Amendment. (Note, Markus T. Funk, The Melting Point Case-in-Point, 85 J. CRIM. L. & CRIMINOL. 764 (1995).) But under the main nineteenth-century line of cases, opponents of banning small handguns must overcome the presumption in those cases that small handguns are not suitable militia weapons; perhaps the frequent and successful use of small handguns in twentieth-century partisan warfare against the Nazis and other oppressive regimes offers one potential line of argument. Twenty-first century jurisprudence might update the civilized-warfare test by changing the focus from the military to the police. The modern American police, especially at the federal level, resemble in many regards the standing army that so concerned the founders. While the American army is geared toward overseas warfare, the police are oriented toward the type of internal-order functions (e.g., suppression of riots), which were among traditional militia duties. Accordingly, the twenty-first century question, "What are suitable militia-type arms?" might be answered, "Arms that are typical of, or suitable for, police duty." By the modernized test, high-quality handguns (both revolvers and semiautomatics) would lie at the core. Smaller, less expensive handguns (frequently carried by police officers as back-up weapons, often in ankle holsters) would also pass the test easily. Ordinary shotguns and rifles (often carried in patrol cars) would also be protected. Machine guns and other weapons of war are not currently ordinary police equipment, although they are becoming common in special attack units. Finally, we need to remember Noah Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language, originally published in 1828. That dictionary, which is closer to the origin of the Second Amendment than any other American dictionary, defines "arms" as follows: "Weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body .... A stand of arms consists of a musket, bayonet, cartridge-box and belt, with a sword. But for common soldiers a sword is not necessary." Webster's definition offers two useful insights. First, the distinction sometimes drawn between "offensive" and "defensive" weapons is of little value. All weapons are made for offense, although they may used for defensive purposes (i.e. shooting someone who is attempting to perpetrate a murder), since the best defense sometimes really is a good offense. Second, Webster reminds us that "arms" are not just weapons. "Arms" also include defensive armor. This suggests very serious constitutional problems with proposals to outlaw possession of bullet-resistant body armor by persons outside the government. http://www.constitution.org/mil/maltrad.htm "In my humble opinion, the petty carping levied against Bush by the Democrats proves again, it is better to have your eye plucked out by an eagle than to be nibbled to death by ducks." - Norman Liebmann --multiplaza.nl.nu-- |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|