Re: CAN THE STATE MILITIAS EVER BE ABOLISHED?

On 25 Nov 2003 22:59:44 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leif Rakur)
wrote:

>"Scout" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>> "Leif Rakur" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > Robert S. Baron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>  news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leif Rakur) wrote: 22 Nov 2003 22:03:32 -0800
>> > > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > > >
>> > > >Robert S. Baron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>  news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>> > > >> >  <snip>
>> > > >>   RSB: Since a well regulated militia is recognized as being
>>  necessary,
>> > > >>   and the people have been guaranteed the general right to keep and
>>  bear
>> > > >>   arms by the federal constitution, it follows that the people have
>>  the
>> > > >>   particular implied right to make themselves well regulated, and
>> > > >>   especially so when the government neglects the militia and lets it
>> > > >>   fall into disuse.  Even in the absence of RKBA incorporation via
>>  the
>> > > >>   Fourteenth Amendment, the state governments have no legitimate
>>  power
>> > > >>   to prevent the people keeping arms and becoming proficient in the
>>  use
>> > > >>   of arms.  The supreme court supports that position in Presser:
>> > > >>
>> > > >>       "But in view of the fact that all citizens capable of bearing
>> > > >>       arms constitute the reserved military force of the national
>> > > >>       government as well as in view of its general powers, the
>> > > >>       States cannot prohibit the people from keeping and bearing
>> > > >>       arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful
>> > > >>       resource for maintaining the public security."
>> > > >>
>> > > >>   RSB: Some might conclude that this merely recognizes the supremacy
>>  of
>> > > >>   federal militia powers in Art.I Sec.8, but this would represent an
>> > > >>   extremely narrow interpretation of the phrase 'rightful resource'.
>>  It
>> > > >>   would suppose that 'rightful' refers to the question of federal
>> > > >>   supremacy, which is not in question.  And it would suppose that the
>> > > >>   definition of 'resource' is not operative, i.e., "something that
>>  lies
>> > > >>   ready for use" [Webster's New World Dictionary].  A well regulated
>> > > >>   militia lies ready for use; a neglected, dispirited militia does
>>  not.
>> > > >
>> > > >Leif speaking:  What Presser says is that the Second Amendment is not
>> > > >applicable against the states:
>> > > >
>> > > >"But a conclusive answer to the contention that this amendment [the
>> > > >Second Amendment] prohibits the legislation in question lies in the
>> > > >fact that the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of
>> > > >Congress and the National government, and not upon that of the
>> > > >States."
>> > > >
>> > > >Insofar as the Second Amendment is concerned, the states can enact
>> > > >whatever gun legislation the people want.
>> > >
>> > >   RSB: Presser was decided in 1886, well before the era of incorporation
>> > >   began in 1897 with Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275.  As you
>> > >   contemplate incorporation of the 2dAm via the 14thAm, ask yourself why
>> > >   an amendment that begins, "Congress shall make no law...", is applied
>> > >   against the states while the provision that guarantees a right of the
>> > >   people shall not be infringed applies only to Congress.
>> >
>> > Leif speaking:  The Second Amendment is NOT incorporated under the 14
>> > Amendment.
>> 
>> Really?
>> 
>> Care to produce the language from the 14th Amendment that declares it does
>> NOT apply to the 2nd Amendment? Heck, care to even produce anything from the
>> debates and ratification of the 14th to show that the 14th would not apply
>> to the 2nd Amendment?
>> 
>> I didn't think so.
>
>Leif speaking:  It's what the Supreme Court thinks the 14th Amendment
>says that counts. 

     The Supreme Court thought seperate but equal and other racist
doctrines were in the constitution untill they changed their
composition and decided otherwise.


It has not incorporated the Second Amendment under
>the 14th to make it applicable to the states.

    Which is NOT a doctrine supported by the constitution or the
amendment it self.