[Norton]

The following was in today's edition of the Capitol. The antis are coming out in force. The paper is not printing my letters.....guess they're sick of my name in print.....so fellow Marylander's go get 'em. The address for letters to the editor is at the bottom.

>>Gun laws
A recent letter on guns (Readers' views, Aug. 8) said that, "As most of us know, ... (the Second Amendment) states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
In fact, that is not what the Second Amendment states. It states that, "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."
While people have the right to keep and bear arms, it is only in the context of the state (meaning the individual states) having well-regulated militias. The Second Amendment's purpose was to deal with a concern among the individual states that the federal government could prohibit states from raising militias, which were thought necessary for one state to defend itself against another state.
Federal laws related to guns and weapons are not new. With the passage of the National Firearms Act in 1934, it has been illegal for people to own machine guns without special permission.
The specific law that the letter mentioned is not the "Clinton Gun Ban" but an extension of the ban against the manufacturing of certain automatic weapons, passed by President Ronald Reagan and President George W. Bush.
This gun law's more popular name is the "Brady Act." It was promulgated as a result of the attempted assassination of President Reagan.
LISA B. HALL
Gambrills, MD<<<


E-mail letters to capletts@capitalgazette.com or mail them to:


Letters to the Editor
The Capital
P.O. Box 911
Annapolis, MD 21404

[Norton]

Here's a quick response that I churned out. I'd appreciate some comments....I'll send it in, but it won't be published....to many letters written by me....:evil:


>>A recent letter, (Reader’s Views, August 17) continues the propagation of half truths and distortions that have come to be expected from those that choose to subvert the freedoms of law-abiding American citizens in exchange for perceived protection from criminal acts committed with firearms.

The author focuses on the use of the words “militia” and “state” in the Second Amendment, but it is “the people” and “shall not be infringed” which prove troublesome to those pursuing this argument. If the premise that the Second Amendment refers to state regulated militias rather than individual rights is true, how does one reconcile the use of the term “the people” with its use in the First, Fourth and Ninth Amendments? Do we not have an individual right to freedom of speech? Do we not have an individual freedom from unreasonable search and seizure?

The letter further tries to blur the distinction between the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Assault Weapon Ban of 1994. While the 1934 legislation did restrict the ownership of fully automatic firearms, the 1994 legislation did nothing of the sort. The 1994 law limited certain semi-automatic firearms (one pull of the trigger equals one shot), based solely on cosmetic features that were perceived as threatening. The law did nothing to address criminals and their use of firearms.<<

[Harry Tuttle]

STATE OF MARYLAND
MARYLAND INSURANCE ADMINISTRATION

525 St. Paul Place, Baltimore, Maryland 21202-2272


LISA B. HALL IS PROMOTED
TO SENIOR COUNSEL

BALTIMORE, MD (March 25, 2004) The Office of the Attorney General has promoted
Lisa Boylan Hall to Senior Counsel for Life and Health at the Maryland Insurance
Administration (MIA), effective in March 2004.

Hall has been an Assistant Attorney General for Life and Health matters at the
MIA since 1999. She also previously has served as a Staff Attorney for the Office of
the Attorney General at the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene and for the CINA
Unit of Legal Aid Bureau, Inc.

She received her bachelor's degree from the University of Maryland, College
Park in 1990 and a Juris Doctorate from the University of Baltimore School of Law in

1993.

This resident of Gambrills, MD also is a member of the Maryland Bar and is
admitted to the U.S. Supreme Court Bar and the Federal District Court of Maryland.

[Standing Wolf]

Harry:

Thanks for the background information. It appears we've heard from another leftist extremist professional parasite.

[Norton]

Thanks Harry...I knew I could count on you to have background information. No surprise that yet another professional gun banner would try to sneak in under the radar as just another "concerned citizen".

I'm so sick of these people....Leah Barrett/Gail Gunn and now this woman.

I'll have to see if I can work in a comment about "Ms. Hall, as an attorney, is surely aware....blah, blah, blah."

[Kharn]

Dont forget to mention Title 10, Section 311 of the US Code, which specifies exactly who the militia is, then ask them to explain their position.

Kharn

[Norton]

Kharn,

Do you have a link or a cut and paste that I can look at?

Thanks!

[Kharn]

Norton:
Here you go: US Code Title 10, Section 311 (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html)
A) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

Title 32, Section 313 allows anyone under 64 to enlist for a tour in the National Guard if they have prior military experience.

Kharn

[Norton]

Kharn,

Thanks a bunch....I'm going to re-write the letter tonight using that citation

[Leatherneck]

Uh, KHarn, I think it would be more complete if you quoted part B:(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia



TC
TFL Survivor

[Kharn]

Leatherneck:
True; I was more afraid of hi-jacking the thread with a really long quote.

Kharn

[Spot77]

I'm so sick of these people that I think I'll take the low road and throw poop on her house.


Again as previously stated, these people are afraid to reveal their true identities and hide under the pretense that they are just "one of us" when in fact they are part of the socialist movement bound to destroy what our fathers, grandfathers and great grandfathers fought to destroy - world communism.

[Harry Tuttle]

So i gather concerned citizen Lisa Hall, is an employee of "final solution" Joe Curran (http://www.oag.state.md.us/Press/pr289.htm) and with her "Life and Health" background she must roll with the John Hopkins clan.

I wonder if we can find a connection to Ceasefire MD?

For a Health Insurance wonk, she seems well schooled in PC constitutional verbage

[Harry Tuttle]

thar she blows:
http://www.ldamaryland.org

Learning Disabilities Association of Maryland, Inc. (LDA-MD)
FIRST VICE PRESIDENT
Lisa Hall
Gambrills, MD

funny how AGs are not savy enough to remove their address from google's phonebook

[Norton]

Harry,

Help me out for a second....maybe I had too many Bass Ales tonight;) , but what is the significance of her association with LDA?

[Norton]

This was in the 8-18-04 Capitol:

>>Assault weapons
A letter (Readers' views, Aug. 12) misled readers about the assault weapons ban. The weapons in question are not fully automatic rifles, as the writer seemed to imply by saying that they "enable the mowing down of many people at one time."
She then referred to the sniper shootings by Lee Malvo and John Muhammad - shootings that were carried out with a semiautomatic weapon that was not subject to the ban.
The only features distinguishing the banned "assault" weapons from other legal semiautomatic rifles, such as the Ruger mini-14, is a list of minor features including a bayonet stud. How many drive-by bayonet attacks have been stopped by this highly effective ban?
The letter writer should educate herself about the features that make up so-called assault rifles to realize the absurdity of such a ban. All rifles - not just the scary-looking ones - can be deadly.
DANIEL SILVERA
Annapolis<<

[Harry Tuttle]

the only significance is that the page also lists her husbands name and email address
and that fact gives you access to her home phone number and address

[Norton]

Harry-gotcha....i thought that maybe i missed something that referred to a Leah Barrett/Gail Gunn-Ceasefire MD-JHU connection.

[Spot77]

DANIEL SILVERA

Where have I seen that name before???:uhoh: :confused: :confused: :scrutiny:

[Spot77]

Aha! I found it:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=71251&highlight=DANIEL+SILVERA


Seems this fine gentleman has had other letters published. We need this fellow to join THR.

[confed sailor]

I wish to god that shyster would read the law she so flippantly quotes!!:fire:


Sec. 311. - Militia: composition and classes


(a)

The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b)

The classes of the militia are -

(1)

the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2)

the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia (thats all of us)

gee whiz even us dumb non-lawyerly laymen can gin that one out.

May all Jd's, esq.'s, PA's, attorney's at law, and other sundry and assorted members of the second oldest profession (a close outgrowth of the 1st) get Carpal Tunnel Syndrome, and die of papercuts


:cuss: :cuss: :cuss: :cuss:

[Norton]

The following LTE was in the Sun this morning:


>>Confronting the NRA isn't the proper path

The 2000 presidential election must have slipped the mind of the writer who expressed a desire for a candidate in this presidential campaign who will "stand up" to the NRA ("A candidate who confronts the NRA," letters, Aug. 16).

Many political observers believe Al Gore's support for tighter federal gun control contributed to his loss in his home state of Tennessee and Democratic stronghold West Virginia, and therefore to his loss of the election.

When a candidate confronts the NRA, he or she also confronts its millions of highly organized and passionate supporters who value having the right to own firearms and question the efficacy and constitutionality of restricting that right.

And it seems to me that any resident of Baltimore should have firsthand knowledge of gun control's inability to rid society of crime.


Brandon Payne
Pasadena

[Norton]

Here's my new version of my letter.....any critiques are mucho appreciated! Is it too long? Unclear? Bring it on....I want to cut this woman's argument off at the knees......


>>A recent letter, (Reader’s Views, August 17) continues the propagation of half truths and distortions that have come to be expected from those that choose to subvert the freedoms of law-abiding American citizens.

The author focuses on the use of the words “militia” and “state” in the Second Amendment, but it is “the people” and “shall not be infringed” which prove troublesome to those pursuing this argument. If the premise that the Second Amendment refers to state regulated militias rather than individual rights is true, how does one reconcile the use of the term “the people” with its use in the First, Fourth and Ninth Amendments? Do we not have an individual right to freedom of speech? Do we not have an individual freedom from unreasonable search and seizure?

As an attorney who has worked closely with the Attorney General’s office, the author is certainly aware of Title 10, Section 311 of the US Code which states,” The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and…under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. The classes of the militia are - (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.”

The author has in fact established a legal argument in favor of the individual right to own firearms as all United States citizens are, in fact, members of the militia as described in the Bill of Rights.<<

[Norton]

This was in today's Capital....not my letter, but if they aren't going to publish mine I'm glad they printed someone's:


>>

Readers' views: Aug. 22 letters - Part Two

Gun laws

Regarding a letter on gun laws (Readers' views, Aug. 17):
I won't argue the letter writer's point regarding the Second Amendment to the Constitution. She and her ilk read it one way, and the founders of our country explained it the opposite way. I will, however, correct some of her distortions and outright lies.
President Ronald Reagan did not sign any of the laws she described. She said the 1994 law is an extension of laws passed by President Ronald Reagan and President George Bush. This is an outright lie. The "Brady Act" of 1994 had nothing to do with machine guns -- period.
As the letter writer correctly reported, machine guns have been highly regulated by the federal government for 60-plus years. The only murder committed since then with a registered machine gun was by a police officer.
The firearms the writer incorrectly called "automatic weapons" are not machine guns. They are semiautomatic firearms that have been used by hunters and target-shooters since the 1800s. The "Clinton Gun Ban" simply banned manufacture of certain semiautomatic firearms based on cosmetic features -- period.
The letter writer's distortions of the truth and downright lies should be disregarded.
By the way, Mr. Reagan was shot by a revolver. The revolver has been around since 1836. Why would Mr. Reagan ban whatever this writer was talking about when he was shot with a firearm whose design was from 1836?
PAUL R. FLANAGAN
Edgewater<<