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

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

Defaulting so soon? The answer was in what you snipped away!
 
> >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)

So? What's your point... that you can cherry-pick definitions?

How does that refute my above statement? How does it refute what
at least two rulings I posted say:

LOVE v. PEPERSACK No. 94-1582. United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.
Decided Feb. 3, 1995.
***
Moreover, even as against federal
regulation, the amendment does not confer an absolute individual
right to bear any type of firearm.
***

STATE vs. WORKMAN, 35 W.Va. 367 (1891)
http://www.saneguns.org/sources/cases/state_v_workman.html

Supposing this [the US Constitution's Second Amendment] to be a
restriction upon legislation by the several states, as well as
by the congress (a question upon which authorities differ) we
may still conclude that by law to regulate a conceded right is
not necessarily to infringe the same.


Is this too hard for you to read and comprehend? Could they be
more clear?

> 
> If, as you say, the amendment refers to states and not individuals,

It refers to several rights, as I've stated repeatedly. Behold:

The right is of THE PEOPLE, the enfranchised body politic in its
collective and political capacity, as the populus armatus,
exercising its jus militiae right to democratically organize,
control, maintain, arm AND man the well regulated militias. NOT
everyone in the THE PEOPLE CLASS, comprised of FREEMEN, had to
serve IN the militia to have THE PEOPLE collectively keep and
bear arms. Read this again 'til it sinks in:

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!

> are you
> saying that the states, all known to have been jealous of each other,

Care to back that claim with some substantiation?

> 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?

By the 10th Amen, the states, who already had the right and
power to regulate and restrict gun ownership and use, just as
they always had, under English common law, would reserve that
right and power. There was always going to be some who had
reservations about the federal govt, but the Const was the best
offer on the table to solve the shortcomings of the AoC, and the
federalists prevailed.

Then there's the point that "keeping and bearing arms," which
WAS what the 2nd Amen was about, and the right that was what was
to be protected, was NOT the same as "owning and carrying guns"
which wasn't their stated worry. And their only stated worry was
that Congress would FAIL TO ARM THEIR state militias, as the
Const required them to do, and thus weaken and destroy the
militias they were "jealous" about preserving.

The Congress HAD to regulate the militia to the degree they were
mandated to by the Const, but there was very little federal
regulation or restriction re gun ownership and use through most
of the 19th century.

> 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?

Mostly, to soft-soap anti-feds and take the wind out of their
sails, what little was left. Ask Madison, and he'll tell you!
But, again, it left to the states many of the traditional powers
and rights they had and wanted to keep, including regulation and
restriction of weapons ownership and use! IF this was such a
concern, please show a cite that supports your claim.
 
> What is evident is the court cases you cite are post-1937,

Perhaps you've been sleeping. Presser, Cruikshank, State v.
Workman are all late 19th Century cases, Aymette is mid-19th
Century, and I've cited over a dozen other passages from
pre-Miller.

> from a court that is
> well known to historians to have flagrantly practiced  judicial activism.

So you blatantly opine. Some objective substantiation would be
helpful here.

Can you show how any of the decisions are "activist" in nature,
or flawed, or have been overturned?

> hmmm.

Straw.

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