Re: The 2ed Amendment as a Gun Nuts Wet Dream

Scout wrote:
> 
> "The Lone Weasel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > "Buckaroo Banzai" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> >
> > >
> > > "Scout" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:JJTxb.25410$Rk5.14612
> > @newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net.
> > > ..
> > >>
> > >> "The Lone Weasel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> > >> message
> > >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >> > "Buckaroo Banzai" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> > >> > news:i8Sxb.25304$Rk5.18637
> > @newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.n
> > >> > et:
> > >> > > "ulTRAX" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >> > > news:3513d8b1.0311261845.4c6daf75
> > @posting.google.com...
> > >> > >> "Scout" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >> > > news:<j6axb.23081$Wy4.17464
> > >> > @newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net
> > >> > > >...
> > >> > >> > "ulTRAX" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >> > >> > news:3513d8b1.0311261345.f65aca9
> > @posting.google.com.
> > >> > >> > ..
> > >> > >> > > It's rather curious that the Gun Nuts find a
> > >> > >> > > universal right to bear arms in language that
> > >> > >> > > clearly doesn't intend one: "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."
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> > Interesting how many people can't seem to see "the
> > >> > >> > right of the
> > >> > > people"....
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> MORE interesting that some can't see that the "well
> > >> > >> regulated militia" being consistent with the
> > >> > >> Constitution and the Militia Act can NOT mean
> > >> > >> EVERYONE.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Even more interesting is the fact that all of the
> > >> > > rights in the BofR are guaranteed to *all* the people,
> > >> > > *except* the 2nd Amendment.  Very convenient.
> > >> >
> > >> > What about the Fifth Amendment, according to you the
> > >> > Framers of the Bill of Rights meant the same thing when
> > >> > they wrote "persons" as when they wrote "people":
> > >> >
> > >> > "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or
> > >> > otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or
> > >> > indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in
> > >> > the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in
> > >> > actual service in time of War or public danger; nor
> > >> > shall any person be subject for the same offence to be
> > >> > twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be
> > >> > compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against
> > >> > himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property,
> > >> > without due process of law; nor shall private property
> > >> > be taken for public use, without just compensation."
> > >> >
> > >> > So you'd indict everybody all the time whether they were
> > >> > charged with a crime or not?  Or do you think maybe
> > >> > parts of the Constitution mean individuals when it says
> > >> > "person" and a class of the populace when it says
> > >> > "people"?
> > >> >
> > >> > Person = singular; people = plural.  That just makes
> > >> > sense, right?
> > >>
> > >> Thus by your analysis, the 4th Amendment doesn't protect
> > >> individuals since it speaks of the right of the people ( a
> > >> plural).
> > >>
> > >> However, I will simply note that a plural can also be used
> > >> to address a bunch of individuals.
> > >>
> > >> Human beings are not the Borg.
> >
> > > Thanks for handling that nonsensical argument for me Scout!
> > >  The Lone Weasel has been alone far too long I think.
> >
> > Well, he didn't explain why you claimed just the Bill of
> > Rights matters, not the whole US Constitution, and why you
> > think the Second Amendment grants individual gun rights when
> > it clearly grants a right to the people, which Snout failed
> > to discuss because he's an ignoramus, not to persons.
> 
> Lee, you are a lying pig. I have discussed these issues with you, and have
> continued to kick your ass everything you stick your lying ass out of cover.

So you blatantly assert.
 
> For example. NO Amendment "grants" any right.

So you blatantly assert. Scalia disagrees:

Scalia is MORE than a casual observer, and he disagrees with
you, so take it up with HIM!:

BRAY v. ALEXANDRIA CLINIC, 506 U.S. 263 (1993), 316
Justice Scalia, opinion of the Court
re: 42 USC 1985(3)
III.

"The Court bypasses the statute's history, intent, and plain 
language in its misplaced reliance on prior precedent. Of 
course, the Court has never before had occasion to construe 
the second clause of 1985(3). The first clause, however, has 
been narrowly construed in Collins v. Hardyman, 341 U.S. 651 
(1951), Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88  (1971), and 
Carpenters v. Scott, 463 U.S. 825  (1983). In the first of 
these decisions, the Court held that 1985(3) did not apply 
to wholly private conspiracies. 12  In Griffin, the Court 
rejected that view, but limited the application of the 
statute's first clause to conspiracies motivated by 
discriminatory intent to deprive plaintiffs of rights 
constitutionally protected against private (and not just 
governmental) deprivation. Finally, Carpenters reemphasized 
that the first clause of 1985(3) offers no relief from the 
violation of rights protected against only state 
interference. 463 U.S., at 830 -834. To date, the Court has 
recognized as rights protected against private encroachment 
(and, hence, by 1985(3)) only the constitutional right of 
interstate travel and rights granted by the Thirteenth 
Amendment."

> As such your continual assert
> they do is a lie. The 2nd DOES protect the right of individuals because
> individuals ARE the people.

So you blatantly assert. But you offer no substantiation for
your mere opinion.

IF "The PEOPLE" were simply ALL individuals, then when Article I
says that the House is selected each two years by "The PEOPLE of
the several states" it would mean that EACH INDIVIDUAL was
empowered to vote for Reps! Clearly that wasn't so! Indeed,
women, blacks, kids, felons, aliens, indians, and some others
were NOT PART of the PEOPLE CLASS that, collectively, selected
the House! ONLY the FREEMEN who were IN the PEOPLE CLASS could
vote, ONE VOTE PER VOTER, and the COLLECTIVE vote's majority
SELECTED the Rep!

But we already KNOW what the term THE PEOPLE meant, because we
have authoritative definitions, unlike Snout's unsubstantiated
blatant assertions:

WHENEVER the term-of-art "THE PEOPLE" appears in the
Constitution or BoR, or even other official documents of the
era, it means one thing only, in every case: THE PEOPLE is a
singular entity, the collective enfranchised body politic,
specifically, the CLASS of Freeman taken collectively in its
political capacity.

The only PERSONS with "political capacity" were FREEMEN, that
is, free, white males of legal age. Often this was called
FREEHOLDER and then also meant property-owning free, white males
of legal age. The term ELECTOR was often used in local or state
documents, and this may have restricted political capacity even
further, by, say, requiring residence in a location for a
certain period of time.

In 1789, women, black slaves, kids, non-citizens (such as
foreigners, Indians, prisoners, rebels/Tories, etc.) had NO
political capacity. They could not vote, and were not required
to serve on juries or in the militia. In that sense, they were
NOT a constituent part of THE PEOPLE! Thus, they had, or may
have had, the rights of all INDIVIDUALS, such as freedom of
religion or habeus corpus, but NOT the rights of FREEMEN or of
the collective FREEMAN class. OR, and this is where the BoR
comes in, any rights they MAY have claimed were not PROTECTED or
GUARANTEED by the Const!

THE PEOPLE is NOT each and every PERSON "considered as
individuals"! It is the collective enfranchised body politic as
its own corporate identity.

Yes, individuals comprise the CLASS of FREEMEN who make up THE
PEOPLE. But *A* single individual doesn't necessarily have the
rights and powers that only the collective class or subset
thereof may enjoy. Yes, individuals make up a jury, but no ONE
individual person can declare HIMSELF a legal jury of one, or
put himself ON a jury, or find someone guilty independent of
the other jurors, can he? Only the jury as a whole can do what
the jury is empowered to do. There ARE NO one-man militias, and
only THE PEOPLE collectively can organize, arm, and maintain a
militia. Congress can declare war, but NOT one Congressman on
his own. The individual that the collective is composed of may
share in the power and rights of the whole, but doesn't have ALL
the same characteristics or prerogatives of the whole. Or, even
as to collective entities, the United States may declare war,
but NOT an individual state. 

A building may be made of bricks, but a brick is NOT the
building! The part is NOT the same as the whole, nor does it
have the same properties or abilities. One can meet IN a
building, but that doesn't mean one can meet in a brick, or even
a pile of bricks equal in number to the number of bricks making
up a building! If one removes one brick from the building, the
building still remains; if one removes and replaces 50 bricks,
the building remains, independent of the particular bricks
changed. 

A corporation may be made up of individuals, but it has an
existence that is not dependent on the life or death, or coming
and going of any particular individual.

So, what THE PEOPLE may do as an enfranchised body politic is
NOT necessarily something any individual may do on his own.
However, an individual may share in the process, and may, as a
member of a designated class or subclass, enjoy the rights OF
that class. IF you are a homeowner, the 3rd Amen rights may be
invoked IF you feel your rights as such have been violated. Not
because YOU yourself are listed in the Const, but because YOU
fit the class protected by the collective term "homeowner."

THE PEOPLE is a legal term of art that has a specific meaning in
law and language:

PEOPLE 
A state; as, the people of the state of New York; a nation in
its collective and political capacity. 4 T. R. 783. See 6 Pet.
S. C. Rep. 467. - Bouvier Law Dictionary

STATE
This word is used in various senses. In its most enlarged sense,
it signifies a self-sufficient body of persons united together
in one community for the defence of their rights, and to do
right and justice to foreigners. In this sense, the state means
the whole people united into one body politic; (q.v.) and the
state, and the people of the state, are equivalent expressions.
1 Pet. Cond. Rep. 37 to 39; 3 Dall. 93; 2 Dall. 425; 2 Wilson's
Lect. 120; Dane's Appx. Sec. 50, p. 63 1 Story, Const. Sec. 361.

In a more limited sense, the word `state' expresses merely the
positive or actual organization of the legislative, or judicial
powers; thus the actual government of the state is designated by
the name of the state; hence the expression, the state has
passed such a law, or prohibited such an act. State also means
the section of territory occupied by a state, as the state of
Pennsylvania. - Bouvier Legal Dictionary

FREEMAN. One who is in the enjoyment of the right to do whatever
he pleases, not forbidden by law. One in the possession of the
civil rights enjoyed by, the people generally. 1 Bouv. Inst. n.
164. See 6 Watts, 556: - Bouvier Legal Dictionary

That is, A Freeman can enjoy or invoke a right OF "the people
generally"! THE RIGHT is a collective right of "the people
generally" that an individual OF that class, as a Freeman, may
enjoy, if it is applicable and distributive!

BODY POLITIC: 
When applied to the government this phrase signifies the state.
As to the persons who compose the body politic, they take
collectively the name, of people, or nation; and individually
they are citizens, when considered in relation to their
political rights, and subjects as being submitted to the laws of
the state. 

CITIZEN:
, persons. One who, under the constitution and laws of
the United States, has a right to vote for representatives in
congress, and other public officers, and who is qualified to
fill offices in the gift of the people. In a more extended
sense, under the word citizen, are included all white persons
born in the United States, and naturalized persons born out of
the same, who have not lost their right as such. This includes
men, women, and children.

3. All natives are not citizens of the United States; the
descendants of the aborigines, and those of African origin, are
not entitled to the rights of citizens. Anterior to the adoption
of the constitution of the United States, each state had the
right to make citizens of such persons as it pleased. That
constitution does not authorize any but white persons to become
citizens of the United States; and it must therefore be presumed
that no one is a citizen who is not white. 1 Litt. R. 334; 10
Conn. R. 340; 1 Meigs, R. 331.
http://www.constitution.org/bouv/bouvier_c.htm

("The Bouvier Law Dictionary remains the basis for the
interpretation of Law since the founding of the American nation.
In questions of law regarding legal definitions from that period
it remains the final arbiter of any disputed interpretation of
that law.")

Judge Story discusses the relationship between "the people" and
"the state" (equivalent expressions) and quotes Justice Wilson
with respect to the rights of states (a state being a "moral
person"). This carries weight, since the Justice Wilson is James
Wilson, signer of the Declaration of Independence, a part of the
first Supreme Court appointed by Washington, a professor of law
at the University of Pennsylvania, and above all, a delegate to
the Constitutional Convention where he served on the "Committee
on Detail," which was charged with putting the Constitution
into its final form. Here's what Story and Wilson said (I thank
Leif Rakur for providing this cite):

"§ 208. In like manner the word "state" is used in various
senses. In its most enlarged sense it means the people composing
a particular nation or community. In this sense the state means
the whole people, united into one body politic; and the state,
and the people of the state, are equivalent expressions.2 Mr.
Justice Wilson, in his Law Lectures, uses the word "state" in
its broadest sense. "In free states," says he, "the people form
an artificial person, or body politic, the highest end [and]
noblest, that can be known. They form that moral person, which
in one of my former lectures,3 I described, as a complete body
of free, natural persons, united together for their common
benefit; as having an understanding and a will; as deliberating,
and resolving, and acting; as possessed of interests, which it
ought to manage; as enjoying rights, which it ought to maintain;
and as lying under obligations, which it ought to perform. To
this moral person, we assign, by way of eminence, the dignified
appellation of STATE." - Joseph Story, "Commentaries on the
Constitution of the United States," 1833.


Here's how one dictionary defines PEOPLE:

> 1 plural : human beings making up a group or assembly or linked by a
> common interest
> 2 plural : HUMAN BEINGS, PERSONS -- often used in compounds instead of
> persons
> 3 plural : the members of a family or kinship
> 4 plural : the mass of a community as distinguished from a special
> class -- often used by Communists to distinguish Communists from other
> people
> 5 plural peoples : a body of persons that are united by a common
> culture, tradition, or sense of kinship, that typically have common
> language, institutions, and beliefs, and that often constitute a
> politically organized group
> 6 : lower animals usually of a specified kind or situation
> 7 : the body of enfranchised citizens of a state

For legal/political/constitutional purposes, #7 is the SINGULAR
and relevant term; the others can go take a hike!

The LEGAL concept of THE PEOPLE is not numerical or even
geographical, but conceptual and political, and THAT definition
is: "the body of enfranchised citizens of the state." IT is a
SINGULAR, collective entity.

Citizens, or "individuals," included women, children and other
non-enfranchised persons; THE PEOPLE was ALWAYS the enfranchised
body-politic in its corporate, collective sense!

(BTW, it seems, according to the Bouvier Law Dictionary,
"citizen" only originally and primarily referred to the
enfranchised white male of age, which is ONLY the same class
that is called... THE PEOPLE, and from which the militia is
drawn as "the BODY of the PEOPLE"! Only in a wider and secondary
use did "citizen" include the non-enfranchised WHITES; blacks
before the War of the Rebellion did NOT have the title
"citizen"!)

The PEOPLE is not numerical, it is conceptual; IT is a singular
entity, like a corporation, which also is made up of
individuals, yet it has perpetual existence and powers
independent and beyond the individuals comprising it.

Some rights are of individuals, and some are of the THE WHOLE
PEOPLE, just as Gallatin said:

"The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right
of the people at large or considered as individuals... It
establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and
which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of."
- Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7,
1789

"The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right
of the people at large OR considered as individuals...

And the 2nd Amen is a perfect example of a right of the people
at large!

"The people," as the "people at large," the "whole body of the
people," the collective "body politic," have the populus armatus
jus militiae right to be involved in the state's (or nation's)
military function, by establishing, arming, controlling,
maintaining the upkeep and readiness of the militia ("keep arms"
as Adams meant it), and serving ("bear arms" as Madison meant
it, if qualified) as citizen-soldiers (as opposed to "regular"
professional soldiers in a standing army), drawn from the "body
of the people," and "trained to arms" and "enrolled" into an
organized, "well regulated" state militia.

"It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and
which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of."

But the "right" to "own and carry guns" was never one of them.
(See Pennsylvania Test Acts) 

THE PEOPLE is NOT each and every PERSON "considered as
individuals"! It is the collective enfranchised body politic as
its own corporate identity.

Some rights are individual and apply to ALL individuals or to
particular classes of individuals when applicable. Other rights
are OF the collective entity itself, INDIVISIBLE, and not based
on numbers:

Rights are collective AND individual; collective in their
formulation, individual OR collective in their exercise and
application. It's a floor wax AND a dessert topping!

But unless your name is engraved in the Const, you have the
rights that accrue to you as a member of the class that IS
engraved therein. Does the 6th Amen say "Joe Doe shall enjoy the
right to a speedy and public trial &c"? Of course not! But if
you are arrested, as one who qualifies as a member of the class
of persons called "accused," you have the rights. Can you
appreciate the subtle difference? Your 3rd Amen rights likewise
depend on your being a homeowner. Not ALL homeowners, not a
collective group of homeowners, but ONE OF A CLASS defined as
"persons who own a home." GET IT?

The 3rd Amen talks about the consent of "the owner" (singular),
not "the people" (plural). The 5th Amen says "no person"
(singular), not "no people" (plural). The 1st Amen talks of the
right of "the people" to assemble (obviously plural; how can a
single individual "assemble"?). The 6th Amen refers to "the
accused," "him," and "his" (singular). The 8th Amen avoids the
problem altogether. If they wanted to, the authors COULD have
written "the right of persons to..." to clearly refer to
individuals, or else written "the right to keep and bear arms,
shall not be infringed" to be as vague as the 8th. Well, they
didn't write "persons" when they could have, so there's no
reason to see an individual right. As the courts have affirmed.

In 1792, when the Militia Act was passed, WHO had the specific
right to "bear arms" ("to render military service in person" as
Madison defined it)? Did blacks have the right? Women?
15-year-olds? Non-property owners? Cripples? Feeble-minded?
Prisoners? "Injuns"? "Furreners"? Indeed, the MAJORITY of people
in the country did NOT have the right to "bear arms" in the
militia, hence they had no militia "right" to "bear arms."
Indeed, laws were passed PREVENTING some, such as blacks, from
even possessing guns, "carrying guns" being a separate action
from "bearing arms."

BUT the PEOPLE AT LARGE, the enfranchised body politic (who
WERE, for the most part, the SAME free, white, property-owning
males who could vote, serve on juries AND made up the militia)
ALWAYS had the collective right to "keep and bear arms," a term
of art first used in the 1780 Mass Const by John Adams, that
referred to the democratic organization, control, arming, and
preservation of the well-regulated state militias by the PEOPLE
AT LARGE, the WHOLE PEOPLE as the populus armatus, exercising
their jus militiae right to participate in the state's and
nation's military function, and, if qualified, to serve in
person as a citizen-soldier, as conscript duty if required, to
forestall the need to rely on a standing army, the "bane of
liberty"! The PEOPLE "keep" (keep permanently ready and maintain
in public stores, as Adams and the Articles of Confederation
meant it) and "bear" ("bear arms" meant to Madison in the 2nd
Amen draft "to render military service") in their collective
capacity. For example, a 70-year-old crippled white male could
VOTE for state reps who organized and controlled the militia;
though unable to "bear arms" in the militia personally, he COULD
participate IN the collective function, exercising HIS PART of
that collective right! A 30-year-old white women in 1792 could
do NEITHER!

The 1st Amen freedom of religion applies to EVERYONE, the 3rd
Amen to homeowners (it isn't relevant to anyone else), the 6th
Amen to those accused of a crime... NOT the same classes of
persons, with decreasing levels of inclusion. The "People" of
the 2nd Amen are ONLY those who qualified to vote or (for the
most part) serve in the militia, which WAS NOT everyone by a
long shot. Did blacks, women, 15-year-olds, non-property owners,
have 1st Amen rights? Did those same persons have the right to
serve in the militia, and thereby "bear arms," or vote
democratically (the Const also says "the People" vote for
Congress every two years; did everyone vote? NO? That's why the
People is ONLY the enfranchised body politic!) to participate in
the organization and control of the militia ("keep and bear
arms")?

Were THOSE PERSONS not individuals? Weren't many even citizens?
But they WERE NOT a part of THE PEOPLE!

Laws are written in the collective and general class sense, but
applied in specific individual and class instances IF you are in
the applicable class. IF you are in the class known as
"homeowner" you have individual 3rd Amen rights; IF you are in
the class known as "accused" you have individual 6th Amen
rights. 

IF you are a member of the CLASS known as the PEOPLE, i.e., the
enfranchised body politic, YOUR 4th Amen right to be secure in
YOUR person and property is protected. THAT'S why it says THE
PEOPLE. 

Which is composed of Freemen, as they belong to the class known
as the People; as Madison's ORIGINAL phrasing of this Amen
indicated "The rights of the people to be secured in THEIR
[emph. added] persons, THEIR homes, THEIR papers, and THEIR
other property from all unreasonable searches and seizures..."
protects the CLASS, so when a member of that class is abused of
these rights, as formulated FOR the CLASS, he, as a member OF
the CLASS, can invoke the rights under the Const for INDIVIDUAL
APPLICATION.

Is that so hard to understand? Hell, even Rehnquist, in
Verdugo, suggested that foreigners, as NON-members of the CLASS
known as The People, did NOT have 4th Amen rights that belonged
TO the CLASS known as The People!

The rights are different rights in each Amen. The People is the
same The People. But some of the RIGHTS apply ONLY to the People
in their collective capacity as the enfranchised body politic
(the whole People), others to certain members of that class
taken collectively (e.g. the militia drawn from "the body of the
People), others to a specific sub-class of The People (The
People of the State), others to the Freemen who comprise The
People, taken collectively or as an individual Freeman. I drew
the distinctions for the different "the People" amendments in
the previous posts.



Second Thoughts: What the right to bear arms really means. 
by Akhil Reed Amar 
http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/103wha.htm

"The amendment speaks of a right of "the people" collectively
rather than a right of "persons" individually. 

And it uses a distinctly military phrase: "bear arms." A deer
hunter or target shooter carries a gun but does not, strictly
speaking, bear arms. The military connotation was even more
obvious in an earlier draft of the amendment, which contained
additional language that "no one religiously scrupulous of
bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in
person." Even in the final version, note how the military phrase
"bear arms" is sandwiched between a clause that talks about the
"militia" and a clause (the Third Amendment) that regulates the
quartering of "soldiers" in times of "war" and "peace."
Likewise, state constitutions in place in 1789 consistently used
the phrase "bear arms" in military contexts and no other. 

... anachronistically, libertarians read "the people" to mean
atomized private persons, each hunting in his own private Idaho,
rather than the citizenry acting collectively. 

But, when the Constitution speaks of "the people" rather than
"persons," the collective connotation is primary. 

"We the People" in the preamble do ordain and establish the
Constitution as public citizens meeting together in conventions
and acting in concert, not as private individuals pursuing our
respective hobbies. The only other reference to "the people" in
the Philadelphia Constitution of 1787 appears a sentence away
from the preamble, and here, too, the meaning is public and
political, not private and individualistic. Every two years,
"the people" -- that is, the voters -- elect the House. 

To see the key distinction another way, recall that women in
1787 had the rights of "persons" (such as freedom to worship and
protections of privacy in their homes) but did not directly
participate in the acts of "the people" -- they did not vote in
constitutional conventions or for Congress, nor were they part
of the militia/people at the heart of the Second Amendment. 

The rest of the Bill of Rights confirms this communitarian
reading. The core of the First Amendment's assembly clause,
which textually abuts the Second Amendment, is the right of "the
people" -- in essence, voters -- to "assemble" in constitutional
conventions and other political conclaves. So, too, the core
rights retained and reserved to "the people" in the Ninth and
Tenth Amendments were rights of the people collectively to
govern themselves democratically.

"The Fourth Amendment is trickier: "The right of the people to
be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated."

Here, the collective "people" wording is paired with more
individualistic language of "persons." And these words obviously
focus on the private domain, protecting individuals in their
private homes more than in the public square. Why, then, did the
Fourth use the words "the people" at all? Probably to highlight
the role that jurors -- acting collectively and representing the
electorate -- would play in deciding which searches were
reasonable and how much to punish government officials who
searched or seized improperly. An early draft of James Madison's
amendment protecting jury rights helps make this linkage obvious
and also resonates with the language of the Second Amendment:
"[T]he trial by jury, as one of the best securities to the
rights of the people, ought to remain inviolate." Note the
obvious echoes here -- "security" (Second Amendment), "secure"
(Fourth Amendment), and "securities" (draft amendment); "shall
not be infringed," "shall not be violated," and "ought to remain
inviolate"; and, of course, "the right of the people" in all
three places. 

If we want an image of the people's militia at the Founding, we
should think first of the militia's cousin, the jury. Like the
militia, the jury was a local body countering imperial
power -- summoned by the government but standing outside it,
representing the people, collectively. Like jury service,
militia participation was both a right and a duty of qualified
voters who were regularly summoned to discharge their public
obligations. Like the jury, the militia was composed of amateurs
arrayed against, and designed to check, permanent and
professional government officials (judges and prosecutors, in
the case of the jury; a standing army in the case of the
militia). Like the jury, the militia embodied collective
political action rather than private pursuits. 

Founding history confirms this. The Framers envisioned Minutemen
bearing guns, not Daniel Boone gunning bears. When we turn to
state constitutions, we consistently find arms-bearing and
militia clauses intertwined with rules governing standing
armies, troop-quartering, martial law, and civilian supremacy.
Libertarians cannot explain this clear pattern that has
everything to do with the military and nothing to do with
hunting."



Amar's overall 4th Amen explanation makes tentative sense, but
I'm not totally convinced by it, as I've said, and my latest
hypothesis would suggest a more limited right than is normally
thought, but, hey, that is the same situation with the 1st and
2nd Amens too, isn't it? 

Here's something based on what I posted in 2001, before I read
Amar's piece:

"It would be awkward to have said 'right of persons to be secure
in their persons, etc.'

Look at Madison's ORIGINAL phrasing of this:

"The rights of the people to be secured in THEIR [emph. added]
persons, THEIR homes, THEIR papers, and THEIR other property
from all unreasonable searches and seizures..." 

Why in the plural, even collective, sense at all?

This could have been rewritten to emphasize the individual
nature of the right, for example, the NY proposal (and likewise
the VA proposal) said:

"That every Freeman has a right to be secure from all
unreasonable searches and seizures of his person his papers or
his property..."

but it was merely shortened and tightened by Congress. There was
almost no House debate over this amendment other than a few
minor insertions, as it was late August and they were trying to
wrap up. Perhaps they were not as fastidious as Adams was in
the Mass Const for maintaining consistency of usage.

No question, this, at first, seems to us to be an INDIVIDUAL
right, but the phrasing should have been more consistent to
reflect that if it were.

Of all the amendments, THIS one varies MOST from the
recommendations of the state proposals in this regard, and
strays most from otherwise consistent usage of plural "the
people" and individual "person" or cognates (including the 1st
AND 2nd Amens, to be addressed separately). 

Unless there is collective sense I'm missing."


Since then, I've read Amar's piece, and I find it less than
wholly satisfying re the 4th, but I see his point; in any case,
there is more reason to accept ONE amen, the 4th, as being able
to be seen as involving the collective people, in some
philosophical and abstract way that isn't readily apparent, and
as *I* have now further suggested, than to see at least THREE
amens, plus OTHER uses in the Const, as involving individuals
when it is so clear that the collective sense IS meant, based on
ALL the other clues and contexts.

Even the 1st Amen reference to THE People, which some harp on,
WAS originally written to refer ONLY to THE People in their
collective role! In one of the longest and most divided ongoing
House debates in 1789, the original phrase in what was to become
the 1st Amen was the flashpoint for what divided those who
sought more democratic input from those who wanted the
representatives to be more independent. The original words read:

"The people shall not be restrained from peaceably assembling
and consulting for their common good; nor from applying to the
legislature by petitions, or remonstrances for redress of their
grievances." (Madison, June 1789)

Rep. Tucker wanted to add after "consulting for their common
good," "to instruct their representative." THIS was the nature
of the PEOPLE assembling that the Congress had in mind.

When the Mass Const is referenced against this, which Madison
surely had access to, there is less doubt that the intention was
for collective consistency; however, unlike in Mass, the US
Const was picked apart and reassembled by many authors, and the
end result may have lacked the unifying hand of one single
author or editor, as Mass did with Adams.

So, the enfranchised persons who made up THE PEOPLE, and who
COULD serve in juries/militias/legislatures/conventions, rather
than EACH "person" per se (which included women, children, and
other "second class citizens") were those Madison was primarily
concerned with protecting, since THEY were the only persons
whose right and expectation to be free from govt snooping
affected their ability to act freely and independently in the
public arena (juries/legislatures/conventions) free from fear or
intimidation. And this even comports with the NY and VA
proposals that said:

"That every FREEMAN has a right to be secure from all
unreasonable searches and seizures of his person his papers or
his property..."

Why did this say FREEMAN (sometimes FREEHOLDER) rather than just
person/citizen/individual? FREEMAN is the ONLY singular term
that leaves out ALL the citizens/persons/individuals who are NOT
those included in the enfranchised (AND propertied!) class known
as THE PEOPLE, and so referred to in every other instance!

Perhaps Madison and the Congress WERE JUST AS consistent as
Adams was in the MA Const of 1780 in using that term, even if we
didn't notice it at first!

IF this is so, than Amar, himself, is wrong to focus on the
right of privacy as being for ANY person who was not otherwise
part of the ENFRANCHISED PEOPLE! (This NOW includes blacks and
women, of course, but not, for example, kids, which would allow
school locker searches as clearly NOT being a 4th Amen
violation.) 

Doesn't it make more sense that the same guys who OK'd slavery
and that women couldn't vote were not so concerned about those
same "second-class citizens" not having various "security"
rights as well? What rights and powers did blacks, kids, and
women have that were to be "retained" by them in Amens 9 and 10?
Which of these persons were going to "consult" or "petition the
legislature" when they couldn't vote or serve? Which of these
persons were going to serve on juries or in the militia, or vote
on the maintenance of the militia, and who needed to be "secure
in their persons... papers... property" to prevent intimidation
when serving in office, on juries, or as voters? Which of these
persons voted each two years on the House races? NONE, and so,
THEY weren't PART OF THE PEOPLE the Const speaks of in EACH
case!

"Individuals" included women, children, and other
non-enfranchised persons; THE PEOPLE was ALWAYS the enfranchised
body-politic in its corporate, collective sense! The PEOPLE is
not numerical, it is conceptual; IT is a singular entity, like a
corporation, which also is made up of individuals, yet it has
perpetual existence and powers independent and beyond the
individuals comprising it. As a single stockholder in AOL, could
*I* buy up the whole Time-Warner Company? NO, only the corporate
entity can do that, whether *I* agree or not.

Checks to the Boys Scouts of America can be tax-deductible, but
NOT checks made out to an individual boy scout; Congress can
declare war, but not an individual congresscritter; a jury has
the right to send someone to prison, but not an individual jury
member; THE PEOPLE can democratically decide how to organize and
control the militia's upkeep and readiness ("keep arms" as Adams
meant it), and who gets to serve in it ("bear arms" as Madison
meant it), but there are NO one-man militias and each or any
single militiaman doesn't get to unilaterally set policy or
order himself into battle. 

THE PEOPLE have the right to alter or abolish their govt... but
ONLY when they are acting as THE WHOLE PEOPLE, THE PEOPLE AT
LARGE, THE BODY POLITIC; individuals don't have that right, and
are correctly treated as rebels and insurrectionists when they
do.

Mr. Madison: "The honorable gentleman from Massachusetts
(Gerry), asks if the sovereignty is not with the people at
large; does he infer that the people can, in detached bodies,
contravene an act established by the whole people? My idea of
the sovereignty of the people is, that the people can change the
constitution if they please, but while the constitution exists,
they must conform themselves to its dictates. But I do not
believe that the inhabitants of any district can speak the voice
of the people, so far from it, their ideas may contradict the
sense of the whole people..."

Notice that Madison is using PEOPLE to refer to several levels
of collective "wholeness," from the "whole people," also the
"people at large," to "people... in detached bodies," to the
"inhabitants of any district." And note too, that "the
inhabitants of any district" which is a certain number of
individuals fewer than "the whole people" are not considered to
be able to "speak the voice of the people," and that even a
goodly number of individuals DO NOT equal or make up "the whole
people." Clearly, "the whole people," "the people at large,"
"the voice of the people," is NOT the same thing as EVEN plural
individuals, much less ANY particular individual!

Does "people" always mean the same thing, as some contend?
HERE, in ONE paragraph, ONE MAN, the MAN WHO WROTE THE BOR, uses
people in multiple senses: "people... in detached bodies" is
NOT "THE whole people." Can "people" (persons) as a bunch of
individuals "change the constitution"? NO, only "The whole
people" in their collective political capacity can do that.
There are things that ONLY THE PEOPLE as a whole can do, such as
"bear arms" against another nation, that each and every
individual can't do on his own.

That is why THE PEOPLE, collectively, can, and have the "right"
to, "keep and bear arms" since there ARE no one-man militias or
one-man declarations of war!

When it says THE PEOPLE, it MEANS THE PEOPLE, the enfranchised
body politic, taken collectively, just as Heyman says Adams
meant in the Mass Const:

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/HeymanChicago.htm

How was the right to arms understood in post-Revolutionary
America? We can attain great insight on this point by exploring
the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780.[145] This document,
which was drafted by John Adams, contains the most carefully
written of all the state declarations of rights and constitutes
one of the best statements "of the fundamental rights of
Americans at the end of the Revolutionary period." [146] [Page
261]

In its preamble, the Massachusetts Constitution sets forth the
relationship between society and its members. The "people" or
"the body-politic" are "formed by a voluntary association of
individuals," who come together through "a social compact." What
is most remarkable is that, having distinguished between the
"people" and "the individuals who compose it," the document then
uses these terms in a consistent way throughout. This makes it
possible to discern with great clarity how the various rights
were understood, and whether they were viewed in individual or
collective terms...

In this way, the Massachusetts declaration draws a clear and
uniform distinction between the rights that belong to
individuals and those that belong to the people as a whole. This
distinction is followed so carefully that it is observed even
when both sorts of rights are implicated. Thus, Article XXIX
declares that the independence of the judiciary is essential
"for the security of the rights of the people, and of every
citizen."

Article XVII of the Massachusetts declaration reads as follows:

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 shall always be held in an
exact subordination to the civil authority and shall be governed
by it.

In view of the declaration's careful usage, there can be no
question that the "right to keep and bear arms" that it
recognizes is one that belongs not to private individuals but to
the people in their collective capacity. This is made even more
clear by the fact that the right is to bear arms "for the common
defence," as well as by the overall concern of the provision: to
control the military force of the community and guard against
the danger of military tyranny. [148]

I have chosen to focus on the Massachusetts Constitution because
of the precision of its language, which strongly illuminates the
nature of the rights that it contains. Yet the same distinction
[Page 263] between "individuals" (or cognate terms) and "the
people" is also generally, although not invariably, observed in
the other post-Revolutionary state declarations of rights. When
these documents recognize a right to bear arms, they always
describe it as a right of "the people," rather than of every
"individual" or "man." [149] This is strong evidence that the
right was understood in collective terms."



The "People" with the Jus Militiae right to "keep and bear arms"
(which means BOTH to maintain the upkeep OF, AND to serve IN,
the militia) was the enfranchised body politic, essentially the
same free white males who could vote, and serve in office,
juries, and the militia, the able-bodied of those who qualified
for the militia being OBLIGATED to do so as a DUTY; Congress
could not infringe on that right by making it moot by FAILING to
fulfill their constitutional duty to ARM, ORGANIZE, and
DISCIPLINE the Militia, which is what Mason and the anti-feds
were concerned about, and WHY the 2nd Amen was written and
passed.

Those individuals who qualified for "bearing arms" (serving)
within a well-regulated militia could not be deprived of owning
and storing at home THOSE weapons in service to the militia,
such weapons being inspected and "enrolled" (registered) each
year during the call up for drilling and taking a "return of
militia" to maintain a record of the inventory of men and
weapons the state had at its disposal (Militia Act of 1792).

Some rights, as that of "THE People" to keep and bear arms, are
of "the people at large," the collective jus militiae right of
"the people at large" as the "populus armatus" to be involved in
the state's (or nation's) military function, by establishing,
arming, controlling, maintaining the upkeep and readiness of the
militia, ("keeping arms" as John Adams meant it) and serving (if
qualified) as citizen-soldiers (as opposed to "regular"
professional soldiers in a standing army) drawn from "the body
of the people," and "trained to arms"  and "enrolled" into an
organized, "well-regulated" state militia ("bearing arms" as
Madison meant it). (The INDIVIDUAL right Madison wanted was the
conscientious objector right that the House OK'd but the Senate
removed.)

The right "to keep and bear arms" was in the context of the
citizen soldier of the conscript militia. In the 18th century 
private arms were never strictly private. The public had
a claim for public purposes. Which is why the Militia Act of
1792 directed each qualified man to enroll (i.e. register)
himself AND his MILITIA WEAPONS and ACCESSORIES each year at
muster, or be fined for failure to, and such inventory of ALL
the men and arms was reported to the state's gov and the US
prez, so that THEY would know on what resources they could call
on in case of need, including private arms!

OF COURSE "THE People" have the right "to keep and bear arms"
since THAT is what the 2nd Amen SAYS. It's just that "THE
People" doesn't mean EVERYONE, taken as discreet individuals,
but rather the enfranchised body politic,  collectively as the
"populus armatus," and "keep and bear arms" doesn't mean "own
and carry guns"!

And the RIGHT is the "JUS MILITIAE right" of THE PEOPLE,
collectively, as the enfranchised body politic, as the "populus
armatus," as "THE WHOLE PEOPLE," to participate in their state's
or nation's military function, by establishing, arming,
controlling, and maintaining the "upkeep and readiness" of the
militia, and serving (if qualified) as citizen-soldiers (as
opposed to "regular" professional soldiers in a standing army)
drawn from "the body of the people," and "trained to arms" and
"enrolled" into an organized, "well-regulated" state militia, as
opposed to leaving it only to professional soldiers to serve as
hired retainers of the sovereign in a military run solely BY
that sovereign. 

Of course, historically and legally, this "right" preceded the
Constitution, since state militias pre-dated the Revolutionary
War! What Mason and Henry wanted was to make sure that the
pre-existing right of the states to keep and maintain their
militias was not infringed by the new federal government, and
thus the right of those qualified to serve in the militia was
not made moot by their failure to be properly and sufficiently
armed by Congress.


"Gun advocates claim that the "right of the people" to keep and
bear arms is distributive, the right of every individual taken
singly.  But the militia as "the people" was always the populus
armatus, in the corporate sense (one cannot be a one-person
militia; one must be formed into groups). Thus Trenchard calls
the militia "the people" even though as we have seen, the groups
he thought of were far from universal. The militia literature
often refers to "the great body of the people" as forming the
militia, and body (corpus) is a necessarily corporate term. The
great body means "the larger portion or sector of" (OED,
"great," 8:c). This usage came from concepts like "sovereignty
is in the people." This does not mean that every individual is
his or her own sovereign. When the American people revolted
against England, there were loyalists, hold-outs, pacifists who
did not join the revolution. Yet Americans claimed that the
"whole people" rose, as Madison wrote in the Federalist, since
the connection with body makes "whole" retain its original, its
etymological sense— wholesome, hale, sound (sanus). The whole
people is the corpus sanum, what Madison calls "the people at
large." Thus "the people" form militias though not every
individual is included in them." (Historian Garry Wills)


"The WHOLE People" was the entire enfranchised body politic,
same as "the People at large" or just "THE People"; "the BODY of
the People" was that same basic class, minus those over 45 years
old, not able-bodied, or otherwise exempt from personal militia
service.

THE PEOPLE have the right to keep and bear arms. This refers to
SEVERAL rights.

THE COLLECTIVE or COMMUNITARIAN right is that the EBP can
democratically organize, control, arm and maintain the readiness
and upkeep of the state's militia or military function; this
right is NOT fully distributive (does any one individual "keep"
all the inventory of the WHOLE militia, or can any one
militiaman decide unilaterally to "bear arms" against the
neighboring state?).

THE INDIVIDUAL RIGHT (other than the conscientious objector
right Madison sought) is that EACH qualified MEMBER of the
PEOPLE CLASS who is drawn from the "body of the PEOPLE" and thus
is IN the militia, may serve in the militia and may keep HIS
personal militia weapons at home, if desired. Also, an
individual member of the PEOPLE class, whether in the militia or
not, may participate in the COLLECTIVE right to the extent that
he may VOTE on his civilian state reps who control the militia,
and some of his officers who run the militia, or otherwise get
more directly involved in the operation of the militia on an
administrative level. 

There's also the RIGHT of the militias to survive and be
preserved, and the right of the states to maintain those state
militias, and use them for state purposes, and appoint the
officers and administer the discipline.

THAT'S IT!

> Just as they are the people in the 4th, 5th, 9th
> and 10th Amendments.

And, as above, the term refers consistently to the enfranchised
body politic in its collective and political capacity, except
for the 5th Amen, where, Stupid Strawslinger Snout, the term
"the People" doesn't even appear at all! What a silly loon!

In the 9th and 10th, as in the 2nd Amen and in the Preamble and
Article I, the term is clearly used ONLY in the collective
sense; in the 4th, the term refers to the PEOPLE Class that is
protected, of which individual FREEMEN who belong to the Class
may invoke those distributive rights that are clearly described
(only individuals have "persons... houses... effects") but ONLY
those members of THAT class are protected. Doubt it? Read
Rehnquist in Verdugo:

Here's the actual cite:

"While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it
suggests that 'the people' protected by the Fourth Amendment,
and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and
powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to
a class of persons who are part of a national community or who
have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country
to be considered part of that community."

And non-citizen aliens, among others, are NOT in the People
Class! So THE PEOPLE is NOT each and every individual person!
And in 1792, neither were women, blacks, indians, felons, or
kids!

This conforms with the Bouvier definition just fine, thank you!
IF you are IN the Class of Persons that WAS the FREEMAN CLASS or
PEOPLE CLASS in 1792, you COULD invoke distributive rights OF
the CLASS, IF they were distributive rights. First and Fourth
Amen rights WERE, but the only distributive 2nd Amen rights were
to vote on state reps who administered the militia, or to keep
personal arms IF one were IN the militia.

QED. Game set match!

The PEOPLE is NOT JUST EACH INDIVIDUAL, but a CLASS OF
PERSONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Is that so hard to understand? Hell, even Rehnquist, in
Verdugo, suggested that foreigners, as NON-members of the CLASS
known as The People, did NOT have 4th Amen rights that belonged
TO the CLASS known as The People!

> The people are individuals, and nothing but.

No, O blatant asserter! YOU mere unsubstantiated opinion is
worthless. The phrase is a legal term of art with a specific
meaning, as shown. IF they wanted to speak of "persons" or
"individuals" they were surely able to; as shown in the Mass
Const, they were very clear about the difference in meaning when
the collective or individual terms were used; or why would they
need to say what YOU would call a redundancy?:

In this way, the Massachusetts declaration draws a clear and
uniform distinction between the rights that belong to
individuals and those that belong to the people as a whole. This
distinction is followed so carefully that it is observed even
when both sorts of rights are implicated. Thus, Article XXIX
declares that the independence of the judiciary is essential
"for the security of the rights of the people, and of every
citizen."

> Of course,
> you know this, you have been told this often enough,

As I've told YOU what the terms mean and meant to the authors,
but you are oblivious to the truth.

> this has been proven to
> you often enough,

YOU'VE proven nothing! Your mere blatant assertion, absent
substantiation is hardly proof! PROOF, consists of authoritative
support, like my citing of Bouvier; YOU have offered NOTHING of
comparable authority to support your fantasy claim.

> but you have to lie because being honest would cause you
> to admit something you fear.....

Why do you keep denying what I've proven?

> that people can keep and bear arms,

It's not "people" lunkhead! It's THE PEOPLE! THE PEOPLE is not
the mere plural of PERSON! See above.

> without
> permission, authorization, approval, recommendation, restriction, or
> limitation. THAT is what you fear. That people can enjoy the rights that you
> no longer have.

So you opine. But your fantasy belief is not proven fact, merely
your blatant assertion of your unsubstantiated opinion. As
usual, Silly Snout.

-- 
Steven Krulick / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ellenville NY 12428-130727