[twoblink]

Ok, Constitution = Supreme law of the land.

I have a gun with say, evil flash suppressor in the PRK; and someone comes to arrest...

Now someone explain to me, why I can't just site the 2nd Amendment and shoe them away??

I am cussing my friend's out at home, cops come. Hey, assuming the neighbors aren't the ones that complain, I will tell the cops, dude, 1st Amendment, get out of my face!

I'm reading about taxes, and it's based on voluntary compliance of us obeying what we "think" is law, but isn't; only color of law, I don't understand how the 2nd Amendment is any different...

For example: 1st Amendment; it doesn't say I can have freedom of religion by first taking a test, paying a small fee, etc... it says freedom of religion; period. If I want to worship tree stumps, damnit this is America, I can!

So again, fundamental question:

Why cannot NOT site the 2nd Amendment for lack of registration etc... and how is "banning" certain guns even constitutional???

[Hkmp5sd]

While we know that the 2nd Amendment protect individuals, until the Supreme Court issues a decision stating that fact, the rest of the government/courts/law enforcement people are going to say that it is not an individual right and arrest you for violating their law.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court, probably knowing what they would have to rule on a straight 2nd Amendment case (like the one about to land on them from the 9th Circuit Court vs. the 5th Circuit Court), they avoid any 2nd Amendment case like the plague. With one decision, they could clean the books on waiting periods, AW bans, Machinegun bans, handgun bans and so on. They are very afraid to officially make that decision .

[telewinz]

You bring up interesting points, bottom line is the police would arrest you first and let the courts decide later. Either way you are arrested and will have legal expenses, how large depends on how hard and long you fight them (the system).

[Preacherman]

Hi, Blinkblink. Also, don't forget that in terms of established US law and jurisprudence, regulation of a right does not equate to infringement of that right, just so long as the regulation(s) is/are not so stringent as to amount to a denial of that right. This is no longer a matter of debate or opinion - it's the law of the land, and I don't expect to see it change - ever! In the case of the 1A, for example, it's well established that the right to free speech does not mean that one can shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater, when no fire is burning. In the case of the 2A, regulation can encompass the accessories with which one may equip a firearm (e.g. bayonet lug, flash-hider, etc.); the number and type of firearms one may own; the procedures one must follow to obtain and keep them; when and where one may "bear" (i.e. carry) them; etc. None of these regulations actually prohibit the "keeping and bearing" of firearms in toto: they simply place conditions and restrictions upon it, and the courts have consistently ruled, in the case of the 2A and most other Articles in the Bill of Rights, that this regulation does not constitute infringement.

Technically, the government could remove the right to "keep", or own, anything except the most basic of firearms (e.g. a .38 Special revolver, or a bolt-action hunting rifle), in very limited quantities (e.g. one!), with restrictions on the type and quantity of ammunition one is allowed (e.g. no more than 50 rounds per weapon, with no expanding bullets permitted), and allow the "bearing" or carrying of these firearms only in the privacy of one's own home, or on a hunting lease. Sounds ghastly, doesn't it? Yet, according to court precedent in many states, such regulations would NOT be an infringement of the 2A - after all, they do, in the strictest legal sense, entitle one to "keep and bear arms"!!! :fire: Of course, in most of the Southern and Mid-Western states such regulations would be shot down: but in many others (do I really need to name them???), the courts are so packed with political appointees that the regulations would almost certainly pass judicial muster.

I get very annoyed with many of the regulations about weapons, but there's nothing whatsoever that you, or I, or anyone else, can do about this except elect a pro-RKBA government on all levels, one that will remove oppressive regulations and streamline the implementation of the 2A (and one that will appoint judges to the SCOTUS who will defend the BoR!!!). Unless and until this happens, sorry, but that's the way it is... and there is so much fragmentation in the RKBA movement, and among firearm owners and enthusiasts in general, that I don't see us getting this right in my lifetime.

[bronco61]

Why cannot NOT site the 2nd Amendment for lack of registration etc... and how is "banning" certain guns even constitutional???

It's NOT constitutional.

, regulation of a right does not equate to infringement of that right

It sure is. I'll give you an example: You have the Right to breathe. Now, can the government have an attachment to your nose to regulate the amount of air you intake per breath, where you breathe or whether you breathe through your mouth or nose?

(Yes, kind of a rediculous sounding analogy.)

it's well established that the right to free speech does not mean that one can shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater

You have every Right to shout "Fire" in a crowded theater. You can also be held accountable for any injuries sustained to people because of your action.

[Preacherman]

You have every Right to shout "Fire" in a crowded theater. You can also be held accountable for any injuries sustained to people because of your action.Unfortunately, the SCOTUS has already ruled that you don't have that right... so the argument fails. We are subject to the rule of law, which oversees the implementation of the constitution. If the SCOTUS agrees that a given law violates the constitution, it's nullified: but they have consistently, over many decades, ruled that regulation is not violation unless taken to such an extreme that the constitutional provision(s) in question are effectively nullified. That's the way it is, and no amount of moaning on our part is going to change the situation. Let's be realists, folks!

[Coltdriver]

And what is apparently a "realist" position to you is not a "realist" position to me.

I prefer to rely on the language of the founding fathers and the longstanding historical reading of the English language.

Our rights were specifically amplified precisely to eliminate a tyrannical government from "regulating" those rights. The SCOTUS is terrified of a 2nd Amendment ruling because they can read English too.

Read this:

THE TEXT OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT

By J. Neil Schulman

J. Neil Schulman is the founder and president of SoftServ Publishing.

If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you'd ring up Carl Sagan, right? And if you wanted to know about desert warfare, the man to call would be Norman Schwartzkopf, no question about it. But who would you call if you wanted the top expert on American usage to tell you the meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?

That was the question I asked A.C. Brocki, editorial coordinator of the Los Angeles Unified School District and formerly senior editor at Houghton Mifflin Publishers -- who himself had been recommended to me as the foremost expert on English usage in the Los Angeles school system. Mr. Brocki told me to get in touch with Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at the University of Southern California and the author of American Usage and Style. The Consensus.

A little research lent support to Brocki's opinion of Professor Copperud's expertise.

Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a distinguished seventeen-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.

He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in continuous print since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publisher's Humanities Award.

That sounds like an expert to me.

After a brief telephone call to Professor Copperud in which I introduced myself but did not give him any indication of why I was interested, I sent the following letter:

"I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as an expert in English usage, to analyze the text of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and extract the intent from the text.

"The text of the Second Amendment is, '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.'

"The debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the sentence, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,' is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with respect to the independent clause containing the subject of the sentence, 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

"I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take into consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent. Further, since your professional analysis will likely become part of litigation regarding the consequences of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath to support, if necessary."

My letter framed several questions about the text of the Second Amendment, then concluded:

"I realize that I am asking you to take on a major responsibility and task with this letter. I am doing so because, as a citizen, I believe it is vitally important to extract the actual meaning of the Second Amendment. While I ask that your analysis not be affected by the political importance of its results, I ask that you do this because of that importance."

Questions and Answers

After several more letters and phone calls, in which we discussed terms for his doing such an analysis, but in which we never discussed either of our opinions regarding the Second Amendment, gun control, or any other political subject, Professor Copperud sent me the following analysis (into which I have it italicized my questions for the sake of clarity):

The words "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying "militia," which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject "the right," verb "shall"). The right to keep and bear arms is asserted as essential for maintaining a militia.

In reply to your numbered questions:

(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to "a well-regulated militia"?
The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people.

(2) Is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a pre-existing right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right "shall not be infringed"?
The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia.

(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well-regulated militia, is, in fact, necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" null and void?
No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.

(4) Does the clause 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, " grant a right to the government to place conditions on the "right of the people to keep and bear arms, " or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?
The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia.

(5) Which of the following does the phrase "well-regulated militia" mean: "well-equipped, " "well-organized, " "well-drilled, " "well-educated, " or "subject to regulations of a superior authority"?
The phrase means "subject to regulations of a superior authority;" this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military.

(6) If at all possible, I would ask you to take into account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written two-hundred years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues cannot be clearly separated.
To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged."

(7) As a "scientific control" on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence:
"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."
My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,
(A) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and
(B) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict "the right of the people to keep and read Books" only to "a well-educated electorate" -- for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?
(A) Your "scientific control" sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.
(B) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation.

Concluding Comment

Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion."

So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage what many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States unconditionally protects the people's right to keep and bear arms, forbidding all governments formed under the Constitution from abridging that right.

As I write this, the attempted coup against constitutional government in the Soviet Union has failed, apparently because the will of the people in that part of the world to be free from capricious tyranny is stronger than the old guard's desire to maintain a monopoly on dictatorial power.

And here in the United States, elected lawmakers, judges, and appointed officials who are pledged to defend the Constitution of the United States ignore, marginalize, or prevaricate about the Second Amendment routinely. American citizens are put in American prisons for carrying arms, owning arms of forbidden sorts, or failing to satisfy bureaucratic requirements regarding the owning and carrying of firearms -- all of which is an abridgement of the unconditional right of the people to keep and bear arms, guaranteed by the Constitution. Even the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), staunch defender of the rest of the Bill of Rights, stands by and does nothing.

It seems it is up to those who believe in the right to keep and bear arms to preserve that right. No one else will. No one else can. Will we beg our elected representatives not to take away our rights, and continue regarding them as representing us if they do? Will we continue obeying judges who decide that the Second Amendment doesn't mean what it says it means but means whatever they say it means in their Orwellian doublespeak?

Or will we simply keep and bear the arms of our choice, as the Constitution of the United States promises us we can, and pledge that we will defend that promise with our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor?

[bronco61]

Unfortunately, the SCOTUS has already ruled that you don't have that right... so the argument fails.

Well, no. The argument is still correct. Courts can rule whatever they want. That doesn't change what is correct. You just have to make the decision to follow the Constitution or the political climate of the times.

It seems it is up to those who believe in the right to keep and bear arms to preserve that right. No one else will. No one else can. Will we beg our elected representatives not to take away our rights, and continue regarding them as representing us if they do? Will we continue obeying judges who decide that the Second Amendment doesn't mean what it says it means but means whatever they say it means in their Orwellian doublespeak?

WOW! The nail was hit squarely on the head with that one!http://community.the-underdogs.org/smiley/armed/ar15.gif

[Don Gwinn]

That's right, folks. Shoot the messenger. Keep arguing with Preacherman, that dastardly statist and hater-of-freedom. :rolleyes:

He's simply telling you what the law is. That's the question he was asked, incidentally. It doesn't mean he agrees with it, but how can anyone be "too" realistic? Either you acknowledge reality as it exists or you don't (In which case you are psychotic and delusional, or at least deeply in denial.) If you have any evidence that what Preacherman says is not true, then I'd like to see it. Evidence that the world ought to be different doesn't count.

None of that means that the good Pater thinks this is how it should be. Customarily, when someone posts this smilie: :fire: It means that he is angered by what he is posting. But that IS the law of the land as it exists. Like it or not, the Supreme Court IS the official arbiter of what is and is not Constitutional in this nation, and they don't agree with us. Pretending otherwise won't help. When the Marines need to get to a town overlooked by a large hill held by the enemy, do they march past the hill (thus refusing to be realists and getting shot up in the process) or do they take the hill? Are they sissies because they're realists?



Twoblink, to put it more succinctly, you'll lose because the police, their guns, and the courts are under the control of people who disagree with you and I.

[MitchSchaft]

regulation of a right does not equate to infringement of that right

reg·u·late ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rgy-lt)
tr.v. reg·u·lat·ed, reg·u·lat·ing, reg·u·lates
To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.
To adjust to a particular specification or requirement: regulate temperature

in·fringe ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-frnj)
v. in·fringed, in·fring·ing, in·fring·es
v. tr.
To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent.


trans·gress ( P ) Pronunciation Key (trns-grs, trnz-)
v. trans·gressed, trans·gress·ing, trans·gress·es
v. tr.
To go beyond or over (a limit or boundary); exceed or overstep: “to make sure that her characters didn't transgress the parameters of ordinariness” (Ron Rosenbaum).


I guess we can agree to disagree then.

[Chris Rhines]

The Constitution does not now, nor has it ever, had any binding power over anyone, save for those individuals who signed it.

It's just a piece of paper. It means nothing. Sorry.

- Chris

[MitchSchaft]

It's just a piece of paper. It means nothing

I haven't gotten to THAT point yet. :what:

[bronco61]

Don Gwinn,

Who's shooting Preacherman? Nobody on here said that Preacherman said that's how it should be and that he likes it this way! Sheesh!!

We're debating whether you CAN regulate a Right, whether we should follow orders from Judges who make their opinions based on their political leanings, etc.

[bronco61]

Don Gwinn,

Who's shooting Preacherman? Nobody on here said that Preacherman said that's how it should be and that he likes it this way! Sheesh!!

We're debating whether you CAN regulate a Right, whether we should follow orders from Judges who make their opinions based on their political leanings, etc.

[bronco61]

Deleted post. Was copy of above post

[Blackhawk]

Ah, this is the kind of fight I like.

Alas, I can't join in right now.

But please keep it up until I can. :D

[tyme]

The Constitution does not now, nor has it ever, had any binding power over anyone, save for those individuals who signed it.

It's just a piece of paper. It means nothing. Sorry.In practice, the vast majority of Americans feel that they're bound by it, in some sense, and that's all that matters.

Not that I'd be against having town meetings, but even if the governmental structure were fixed and real meetings-of-the-people were implemented in each community, I don't think that system of governance would be effective. It's not difficult to see the result of Town Meeting vs WWF. People just don't care anymore. Oh, they care about their taxes, getting sued, going to prison, and the precise height of their neighbor's grass - anything over a foot is a "jungle" and must be fixed by the government at the owner's expense. But that's about it. That and TV and the internet and 400-threadcount sheets.

Of course, people care about other things some of the time. But because of jobs and family and social commitments they can't be bothered to give those things more than an occasional thought - usually toward the end of an over-zealous cocktail hour.

[Don Gwinn]

If you say so, sir. That's not how it looked to me when I read your post and Coltdriver's. Looked to me like both of you were arguing with Preacherman and treating that position as his. People are going as far as to post the dictionary entry for "infringement" as if Preacherman doesn't know it. Again, he's just talking about what the court has said.

When the court refuses to grant cert to a case where someone is challenging a registration scheme, they are tacitly saying that the registration scheme meets their approval.

[tyme]

(DG) When the court refuses to grant cert to a case where someone is challenging a registration scheme, they are tacitly saying that the registration scheme meets their approval.Several of the justices have said plainly that they usually don't and won't take cases just because they disagree with lower court rulings.

[Art Eatman]

I guess one way to put it would be that regardless of the unConstitutionality of any law, it will be enforced as though it were Constitutional until some appropriate court orders it nullified.

Realism is that all laws are Constitutional until a court sez otherwise. Regardless of what a dictionary says, or what your lawyer says or what you believe, those vested with the power of enforcing laws will do so--and with guns, if they deem it necessary.

Never, ever forget: When an attorney gives you bad advice, he ain't the one going to the Joint.

My rather cynical view is that when it comes to laws controlling the citizenry, reality sucks.

Art

[twoblink]

I don't know when Americans (America!!) has gotten so soft..

I seem to recall from history class (of course this is something kids don't learn in PUBLIC schools now) but a bunch of folks dumped a lot of tea somewhere in Boston because some tax pissed them off..

Now, taxes are almost as bad as Canada, we have so many of our rights erroded away it's rediculous, and we are nowhere near being pissed off enough;

It would seem to me, that with the nickle-n-dime'ing of our rights, by the time we are pissed off, none of use will have any guns to revolt with..

Back to basics and fundamentals?

Pro is opposite of Con.
Congress is opposite of Progress..

We all know it, I think what we need is a "Constitutional Reference" law; that means every law passed must state where that laws has vested power as granted to it by the Constitution; I seem to recall a Senator or Congressman who proposed that one time..