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

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 01:55:03 GMT, Steve Krulick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

"snip"

>No court has ruled the states or feds can't RESTRICT or REGULATE
>weapons owning, transport, carrying, or use. YOUR use of
>"infringe" is a strawman; the use of "infringe" in the 2nd Amen
>refers to the feds infringing on the rights of the STATES.

retsrict
1: to subject to bounds or limits 

regulate:
 1: to govern or direct according to rule

infringe:
: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another 
 Example: the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
 infringed -- U.S. Constitution amend. II
(http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com)

If, as you say, the amendment refers to states and not individuals, are you
saying that the states, all known to have been jealous of each other, would
voluntarily ratify a document that allows the "rights" of the "state" to be
subject to *regulation* and/or *restriction* (see definitions above) from the
very government they wish to be protected from?

OTOH, if such a power was to limit the "feds infringing on the rights of the
STATES", of what use would the passage of Article X be needed?

What is evident is the court cases you cite are post-1937, from a court that is
well known to historians to have flagrantly practiced  judicial activism. hmmm.