Members of Congress to reload gun rights caucus

[kcofohio]

With a new sheriff in town (D.C.), hopefully this gives a breathe of fresh air to the 2nd Amendment.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/12/09/members-congress-to-reload-gun-rights-caucus.html

The recent election results present us with a new opportunity to advance pro-gun legislation and reverse the erosion of the Second Amendment that's occurred over the last few decades. I look forward to working with the new President and this determined group of conservatives to promote a pro-gun agenda,” Massie said in the statement.

 

[AlexanderA]

I'm waiting to see concrete policy proposals -- and introduced bills -- to come out of this caucus, rather than just vague rhetoric. In the past, advocating for the RKBA has been a way to garner votes, but nothing ever seems to get done. Some elected advocates just want see the issue kept alive forever. If they actually delivered, it would disappear as an issue. And, if the truth be told, some gun control advocates are the same way. (The same thing happens with other controversial issues, as well. They are valuable to excite the electorate, and therefore, to cynical politicians, it's better to keep them on the table than to settle them.)

 

[kcofohio]

AlexanderA, while you could be right, the time is ripe that things can get done if they are serious.

 

[JohnBiltz]

I don't expect much from congress. Not sure I want much from the feds. A friendlier Supreme Court, repeal of a lot of Presidential Executive Orders would be a good thing as well. I think there are now 39 Republican governors and I forget how many state legislatures are now Republican that is where the real power lies with gun rights. The Democrats have not been this weak in almost a century. No excuse not to get things done in most states.

 

[Elkins45]

With a new sheriff in town (D.C.), hopefully this gives a breathe of fresh air to the 2nd Amendment.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/12/09/members-congress-to-reload-gun-rights-caucus.html

Massie is my Representative and a Class 3 enthusiast. I like him.

 

[230RN]

I suspect this would be a good idea to play with, with respect to the individual States. This is where the antis are concentrating their farces.

I would like to see a "coalition" or "caucus" like that open to all elected officials in Colorado who support RKBA, just to make the right noise at the purple legislators.

Maybe something like that would counterbalance the decades-old push by the lefties to turn this into a blue State. I wouldn't mind seeing Colorado turn back to red instead of that shameful purple.

Terry

 

[cheygriz]

Here would be a good start. A contitutional Amendment.

Amendment 28
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

This would repeal the so-called militia language in the 2A and make it crystal clear that the RTKBA is an inviolable, individual right

 

[Twiki357]

With some of the congressmen listed, it may just originate some meaningful bills. Who knows if they will go anywhere though? My congressman (Gosar) is one of the members and is very active and pro-active so my hopes are high.

 

[AlexanderA]

Amendment 28
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

This would repeal the so-called militia language in the 2A and make it crystal clear that the RTKBA is an inviolable, individual right

That wouldn't resolve anything. You'd have the same interpretation problems as before. As it is, Scalia's opinion in the Heller case made the militia clause meaningless.

Personally, I like the militia clause. Properly applied, it means that individuals can keep guns for resistance against tyranny and foreign invasion, as well as personal self-defense. It cements the political, civic purpose of the RKBA. (The idea being that the general population should be as well armed as the standing army. That's what the Founders intended.)

 

[JohnBiltz]

Let me add I would love to see some one come in and investigate the ATF. A serious audit on what and how they are doing what they are doing. They have a lot to answer for in my opinion.

 

[230RN]

Half the time I appreciate the militia clause. It serves notice to both outboard and inboard (read "foreign and domestic") enemies of freedom not to mess around with we the people.

Apart from which an "abridged" amendment outside of the actual first Ten Amendments would kind of take it out of the stated purpose of the Bill Of Rights (BOR), which is/was to to prevent misconstruction or abuse of the federal government's powers.

This strong statement of the purpose of the BOR appears, not in the Preamble to the Constitution, but in the Preamble to the BOR, which is rarely quoted but is very important.

The main problem is that revisionists ("leftists" "bureaucrats," "lawyers," whatever) have ignored that strong statement of purpose and have weasel-worded things like "militia" and "infringed" to their own interpretation despite the fact that the second Amendment is the most clearly stated and unambiguous statement perhaps in the whole constititution.

Oh, and by the way, Happy Bill Of Rights Day, 10 December.

Terry, 230RN

NOTE: As a convenience, I quote here that Preamble to the BOR in its entirety:

------------------------------------
Congress OF THE United States
begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday
the Fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.:
(Bolding mine.)
-----------------------

And those first ten Amendments followed. This was finally totally adopted as part of the Constitution.

 

[yokel]

Half the time I appreciate the militia clause. It serves notice to both outboard and inboard (read "foreign and domestic") enemies of freedom not to mess around with we the people.

Apart from which an "abridged" amendment outside of the actual first Ten Amendments would kind of take it out of the stated purpose of the Bill Of Rights (BOR), which is/was to to prevent misconstruction or abuse of the federal government's powers.

This strong statement of the purpose of the BOR appears, not in the Preamble to the Constitution, but in the Preamble to the BOR, which is rarely quoted but is very important.

The main problem is that revisionists ("leftists" "bureaucrats," "lawyers," whatever) have ignored that strong statement of purpose and have weasel-worded things like "militia" and "infringed" to their own interpretation despite the fact that the second Amendment is the most clearly stated and unambiguous statement perhaps in the whole constititution.

Oh, and by the way, Happy Bill Of Rights Day, 10 December.

Terry, 230RN

NOTE: As a convenience, I quote here that Preamble to the BOR in its entirety:

------------------------------------
Congress OF THE United States
begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday
the Fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.:
(Bolding mine.)
-----------------------

And those first ten Amendments followed. This was finally totally adopted as part of the Constitution.

If we truly respect the American founding, we must never agree to be estranged from it. We must never let the Founding Father’s way of speaking and thinking become so alien and unfamiliar to us that we come to live, as it were, in another country, divided from them by barriers of impatient feeling and incomprehension.

This is one reason we must reject the revisions of “style” that cut us off from the monuments they inscribed to liberty and self-government. If our right of liberty is to survive, so must our ability to read and comprehend those inscriptions.

 

[ofitg]

If we truly respect the American founding, we must never agree to be estranged from it.

We have already lost too much ground in this regard. In a Marist survey, one-fourth of Americans did not know that we declared our independence from Great Britain in 1776 -

http://maristpoll.marist.edu/72-don’t-know-much-about-history/

 

[cheygriz]

By removing the militia clause, Heller cannot be overturned by a simple majority vpote of a liberal court 10 or 20 years from now.

Remember miller v U.S. , 307 US 174

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/307/174

Miller's conviction was upheld because the short barrelled shotgun he possessed was not a "militia" weapon.

By that line of thinking, all .22 rimfires could be banned. All handguns smaller than service grade could be banned. The list goes on. And all of these bans would be in compliance with the decision in Miller.

Think about it!

 

[AlexanderA]

Miller's conviction was upheld because the short barrelled shotgun he possessed was not a "militia" weapon.

On the other hand, if the weapon in question had been a machine gun (rather than a sawed-off shotgun), the Court would have taken judicial notice that a machine gun was in common use by the military, would have invalidated the prohibition, and would have held the NFA to be unconstitutional. (That is, if they had applied the reasoning of Miller in a consistent way. They might well have found some other excuse to uphold the NFA. You can never discount politics in these kinds of decisions. The Justices do not live in an ivory tower.)

 

[ofitg]

Over the years, our military has employed almost all classes of firearms...... shotguns, scoped bolt-action rifles, .22 rimfires for training, handguns in a variety of calibers. Why would these weapons not be suitable for militia service?

 

[lead-inspector]

The reason US vs Miller did not overturn the NFA was : The defence made no attempt to dispute the Government argument because "by the time of the Supreme Court decision, Miller had been killed and Layton made a plea bargain after the decision was handed down, so there were NO CLAIMANTS left to continue legal proceedings".

So the court In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.

So the Government won due to no defence at all.

 

[230RN]

Kind of interesting:

http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/miller.htm

Few who discuss this decision have actually read it, and so know that the Court heard only one side of the matter, the Government’s. Fewer still have read the entire record, and so know that the Court rejected most of the Government’s claims about the Second Amendment. In keeping with our pledge to give you all of the facts, we set forth below not just the facts in the record, but facts that might have moved the Court to decide differently, had anyone represented Miller before the Court.

Terry

 

[cheygriz]

There's no question Miller was a complicated situation.

But I've read the majority opinion in it's entirety on "Findlaw,"

And I truly believe that if the "militia" clause had not been a part of the 2A, the court would have overturned GCA34.

Regardless of other facts in evidence or lack of proper defence, without the militia clause the Court would have had little choice but to find the GCA 34 "prima facie" unconstitutional.

 

[ofitg]

Miller's failure to appear before the Supreme Court is a central issue of the story. In fact, an anti-gun District Judge named Hiram Heartsill Ragon set aside the indictment against Miller, knowing full well that (1) Miller would go into hiding after being released, and (2) the government would take the case to the Supreme Court. The government's victory in the SCOTUS case was assured.

http://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/ECM_PRO_060964.pdf

This type of subterfuge might be more common than we realize. Also, It's not hard to imagine that a judge with an "agenda" might use twisted logic to deliver a hostile decision. For instance, consider what a nefarious judge might do with Scalia's assertion that the Second Amendment only protects weapons "typically possessed by law abiding citizens"..... it's estimated that around 40% of American households have guns.... which means that the majority of law abiding citizens do not own guns at all. Based upon these numbers, a nefarious judge might declare that gun ownership is not a "typical" trait in the United States; ie, law-abiding citizens do not "typically" possess ANY kind of firearm. The nefarious judge might note that edged weapons can be found in the majority of households, and therefore meet Scalia's criteria for 2nd Amendment protection, while firearms do not qualify.