| no_name 2006-01-17, 11:48 pm |
| Ivor Jones wrote:
> "no_name" <no_name@no.where.invalid> wrote in message
> news:_kXyf.26998$0h.5374@tornado.southeast.rr.com
>
>
>
> Exactly. So why give them the opportunity..?
>
> Ivor
>
>
Second Amendment to the US Constitution. It may not make sense to a lot
of folks, but it's part of the fundamental law of the land.
"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 Second Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights at a time when
the framers of the Constitution still remembered the role of local
militias in resisting the depredations of King George's Redcoats during
the American Revolution.
The "Minute Men" were the militia, as were the soldiers who rowed
Washington across the Delaware on Christmas Day to to attack the
Hessians in the Battle of Trenton.
And it was the militias from the Carolinas, Virginia, Kentucky &
Tennessee who defeated Cornwallis' army at Kings Mountain, the "hornet's
nest of rebellion", setting him on the path toward his ultimate defeat
at Yorktown.
The militia, under control of the various state governments, was seen as
a check to prevent abuse of the states by the Federal government.
In addition, due to the activities of the British Army in the colonies
before and during the American Revolution, the founding fathers had a
distrust of professional military and standing armies.
So there's good reason for the framers of the US Constitution to put
such reliance on the militia for US military power. The bulk of US
military power was intended to come from the States with a very small
standing army.
I don't think the framers anticipated the ways the Second Amendment
would be interpreted today. For one thing, I know they did not intend to
divorce the two clauses; the "well regulated militia" and the "right of
the people"; merely because of puncuation.
The right of "the people" to keep and bear arms is a function of the
States' need for a "well regulated militia". And in the usage of the
time "the people" are embodied as the State government.
The Second Amendment is intended to provide the individual States with a
balance of power against Federal power. What is now seen as an
individual right was initially intended to be a group right.
Although "well regulated" in this formulation means well trained, it
also means the State has the power to determine the time and place for
that militia to assemble and what arms the members of the militia have
to bring to that assembly. Inherent in that power is the power to know
what arms are being kept.
Furthermore, Article 1, Section 8, US Constitution grants to the US
Congress the power:
"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and
for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the
United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of
the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the
discipline prescribed by Congress;"
Congress is further empowered to:
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into
Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this
Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any
department or Officer thereof."
This means that Congress AND the states are both allowed AND REQUIRED to
regulate the arms appropriate to the militia.
I'm one of those who believe regulation, licensing & registration is not
an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms under the Second
Amendment, but I'm in the minority.
OTOH, the courts appear to agree with my views ... for now.
Actual full-auto machine guns are very strictly regulated, with none
allowed to be manufactured for sale to civilians after 1986 (IIRC) and
the court has upheld that law repeatedly. Purchasing a real,
honest-to-god machine gun is a real pain in the fundament. You can do
it, but it's damn expensive, and you're going to be watched like a hawk
from then on.
The courts have upheld this under the "commerce clause" (also Art 2, Sec
8), although I think the "militia clause" would provide a stronger basis.
The so called "Assault Weapons" available today are specifically
designed to not violate the 1994 Assualt Weapons Ban. That they continue
to be available is a defect in the way the law was written, although I
don't know if Congress could have written a law that would actually work
and still be held constitutional.
That law expired and is unlikely to be renewed in today's political
climate, so it's a moot point.
|