Re: CAN THE STATE MILITIAS EVER BE ABOLISHED?

"Leif Rakur" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Diogenes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > Leif Rakur wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> > The only reason the second amendment is not incorporated is because the
> > courts have simply not chosen to do so, as they did with others, and
simply
> > restating it hasn't been incorporated doesn't address the question that
was
> > raised.
> >
> > > Presser is good law.  The states, insofar as the Second
> > > Amendment is concerned, pass whatever kind of gun legislation they
> > > want.
> >
> > And, of course, before incorporation they could, in theory, pass
whatever
> > speech, or any other, law that was previously prohibited only to the
> > federal government. They could even put statues of the ten commandments
in
> > their court houses if they wanted to.
> >
> > > The Second Amendment protects the right of the people
> > > collectively to maintain their own state militia even if Congress
> > > should fail to do its constitutional part in that respect.
> >
> > There is nothing any more 'collective' about the second than any other
> > enumerated right of the people.
> >
> > >  It's hard
> > > to see how that provision could be applied AGAINST the states.
> >
> > It's actually quite easy. The second's protection of the people's right
to
> > keep and bear arms is precisely because government wields power, and an
> > armed populace is a counter balance to that power: an inherent right of
> > self protection, from others and even one's own government should it
turn
> > oppressive; no longer serving the needs of the people. Which, if you'll
> > note, is precisely what the Revolutionary War was about, as specifically
> > stated in the Declaration of Independence.
> >
> > It is not much of a stretch to imagine that if the people have that
right
> > of self protection, including from the Federal government, then they
have
> > that same right of protection from their State government.
>
> Leif speaking:  The Second Amendment was written to restrain Congress
> from infringing the right of the people to their state militia.

Bullshit.

The 2nd protects the right of the people, not the right of the militia. If
the objective was only to protect the militia then THAT is what they would
have written. Nevermind the commentary that utterly refutes any idea that
the militia exclusively was to be protected by the 2nd.