--------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 185 RIGHT/BEAR ARMS Ref: EEX00005Date: 10/27/97 From: JACKSON DRYDEN Time: 06:24pm \/To: SEAN RYAN (Read 1 times) Subj: The Second Amendment and the Supreme Cou18:24:3210/27/97 SR> During the Spring Semester, I took a class on SR> Government, and learned something SR> I am surprised I never heard before. SR> There has been a lot of talk about the "right to SR> bear arms" and such. "You SR> can't take my guns, I have a Constitutional right to it". I find it SR> interesting that the Supreme Court has NEVER SR> interpreted the Second Amendment SR> as an individual's right to own firearms. It has SR> ALWAYS interpreted it as the SR> right of a state to have a militia (National Guard). SR> If a city wishes to, they can even outlaw firearms SR> within their city limits. SR> It has been done, and is Constitutional! SR> I'm surprised I did not hear this BEFORE my Senior year in college :) Hi Sean, I'm not surprised that your course work included this particular interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. And you are correct that many of th the justices that have sat on the cases that you have mentioned have expressed that opinion, however, that particular aspect, whether or not RTKBA is an individual right, has never been actually passed upon per se. Indeed, in the recent strikedown of the Brady mandated background checks (on a 10th Amendment challenge), Justice Clarence Thomas noted that he would be surprised if the authors of the constitution would have meant individuals when using the term "the people" in the 1st Amendment (and others), but not individuals when using the same term in the 2nd. Additionally, Justice Thomas seemed to be inviting someone to bring a 2nd Amendment case before the court. Also, since you are obviously educated, albeit liberally, if you take the rules of grammer and apply them carefully to the 2nd, you will find that the second part of that sentence is in no way dependent upon the first part for its meaning. ....the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" stands complete and by itself. I firmly believe that logic dictates that 1) it is better tha the people be armed, 2) it is constitutional that they be armed, and 3) that to do otherwise would be to play into the hands of criminals and know-nothing liberals who believe that they know better how to rule us than we do ourselves. You will note that the last statement flies in the face of the founder's oft stated belief that the people ought to rule themselves. Do a little research, do a little reading, do a lot of thinking . I look forward to your next post. jackson --- Maximus/2 3.01 * Origin: NUT N' MUCH BBS Madison TN (615 868-8370 ISDN/Analog) (1:116/305) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 185 RIGHT/BEAR ARMS Ref: EEX00006Date: 10/27/97 From: RICHARD PRENTISS Time: 09:39pm \/To: BRIAN TIPLING (Read 1 times) Subj: RE: NRA GENERAL RKBA DIG > A good way to deal with this might be for the NRA to publish a > list of all > businesses contributing to organizations such as HCI... We could You can find just such lists on the NRA web site (www.nra.org) and the American Firearms Mfgrs Assn web site, (www.amfire.com). *Rich*Englewood*Colorado*Where is Sarah Connor when we need her?* --- FLAME v1.1 * Origin: The Grotto - Arvada, CO (303) 421-7186 V.32bis (1:104/251) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 185 RIGHT/BEAR ARMS Ref: EEX00007Date: 10/24/97 From: MATT SMITH Time: 09:31pm \/To: BRIAN TIPLING (Read 1 times) Subj: Re: Liberals BT> On 10/21/97, Earnest Padgette mumbled this about: Re: The Press. BT> BT> EP> Limousine Liberal: "Your money and his ideas". BT> BT> I really like it!!! Or as a local conservative state legislator puts it "A liberal is someone who wants to do his ideas with your money". --- Simplex BBS (v1.07.00Beta [DOS]) * Origin: The purpose of the 2nd? To stop Gov't Tyranny!!! (1:3644/8) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 185 RIGHT/BEAR ARMS Ref: EEX00008Date: 10/25/97 From: MATT SMITH Time: 11:38pm \/To: TOM ENRIGHT (Read 1 times) Subj: Re: Media blackout TE> MS> I'd say the problem is not "the media" but the NRA leadership. TE> MS> If the big media (daily papers, TV, etc.) won't run the ads, a TE> MS> creative NRA leadership would have made ads that it would have TE> MS> contracted with non-chain billboard companies and independent TE> weeklies TE> MS> to run. These media outlets are typically financially in no TE> place to TE> MS> refuse any ad. TE> TE> Wrong audience. The majority of weekly papers that I'm aware of TE> are rural publications. The intended audience for the NRA's TE> message is the urban and metropolitan audience. North Carolina abounds with weekly papers, many "throwaway" ones given away and supported solely by advertisers. Most throwaway papers here are in urban areas like Greensboro or Raleigh. TE> billboards, I categorically ignore them. I doubt that I'm alone TE> in that attitude, so I question efficiency of that medium. Billboards are obviously effective enough that cigarette companies think they are worth buying, and the FDA thinks that cigarette ads should be banned from them! --- Simplex BBS (v1.07.00Beta [DOS]) * Origin: The purpose of the 2nd? To stop Gov't Tyranny!!! (1:3644/8) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 185 RIGHT/BEAR ARMS Ref: EEX00009Date: 10/26/97 From: MATT SMITH Time: 09:18pm \/To: EARNEST PADGETTE (Read 1 times) Subj: Re: Media blackout EP> MS> I'd say the problem is not "the media" but the NRA leadership. EP> MS> If the big media (daily papers, TV, etc.) won't run the ads, a EP> creative EP> MS>NRA leadership would have made ads that it would have EP> MS>contracted with non-chain billboard companies and EP> MS>independent weeklies to run. These media outlets are EP> MS>typically financially in no place to refuse any ad. EP> EP> Only one problem, Matt. How many people *read* the Weelbash EP> Weekly? And aren't those people *already* on our side, by in EP> large? We need media outlets in *urban* areas; and those are EP> denied to us. Down here in North Carolina, most "throwaway" weeklies are in urban areas such as Raleigh or Greensboro or Winston-Salem. They are widely read by yuppie types and by urban soccer mom types. Their core readership seems in the late 20s-early 40s and college graduates, based on ads. --- Simplex BBS (v1.07.00Beta [DOS]) * Origin: The purpose of the 2nd? To stop Gov't Tyranny!!! (1:3644/8) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 185 RIGHT/BEAR ARMS Ref: EEX00010Date: 10/28/97 From: BRIAN TIPLING Time: 01:02am \/To: SEAN RYAN (Read 1 times) Subj: Re: The Second Amendment and the Supreme01:02:3610/28/97 Hi Sean... On 10/28/97, Sean Ryan mumbled this about: The Second Amendment and the Supreme Court. SR> There has been a lot of talk about the "right to bear arms" and such. "You SR> can't take my guns, I have a Constitutional right to it". I find it SR> interesting that the Supreme Court has NEVER interpreted the Second SR> Amendment as an individual's right to own firearms. It has ALWAYS SR> interpreted it as the right of a state to have a militia (National ard). Don't buy into a liberal teacher's slant of what he wants you to believe... The deadliest lie is half the truth... Brian --- MacKennel 2.6 * Origin: Swamp City - San Diego, California - 619-547-7560 (1:202/1406.0) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 185 RIGHT/BEAR ARMS Ref: EEX00011Date: 10/28/97 From: JIM WESTBROOK Time: 09:09am \/To: ALL (Read 1 times) Subj: Echo rules RTKBA CONFERENCE RULES This is a non-confrontational echo. If you chose to use this echo, then please conduct yourself according to these rules. If these rules do not suit you, then please feel free to take advantage of other echoes or nets. Confrontational activity constitutes grounds for punitive action. Your use of this echo is by implied consent. I.e. you are implying that you consent to obey the rules by your use of this echo. 1) Keep to the topic of the area, our Right To Keep and Bear Arms. There are several other echoes for the discussion of technical issues. Please use them for their intended purpose. If you want to bring something up that isn't OBVIOUSLY tied to the topic -- then make it obvious. E.G., if the discussion of the bombing in OKLA. comes up, please make sure to tie it into RTKBA and not wander all over the place with it. 2) Play nice. Let's leave the personalities out of the discussions. If confused, see paragraph one above. 3) If you claim something as a fact, substantiate it with the reference material. This applies especially to statistics -- they need to be verifiable, and/or direct quote citations. Don't assume that the other participants will automatically understand the point you are making without sufficient explanation. Opinions are fine, but they only go so far and need to be stated as such, not as an inference of fact. Note that this area is for the free exchange of information and ideas. It is not for attempting to impress the other participants with your cleverness with the English language or debate obfuscation technique. 4) Selective quoting for the sake of manipulating the discussion is frowned upon. So, too, is quoting to excess. Quotes need to be relevant and succinct. 5) Receiving several posts with valid, and substantiated, counterpoints citing source material should either be answered in kind or gracefully acknowledged. Saying that you haven't seen them is a cop out. Neither the moderator nor the other participants will buy that one for long. 6) This area will not be used for any commercial or personal enterprises for any reason, with the single exception of raising funds for the protection of our second amendment rights. 7) Illegal stuff: Keep it legal. If you're not sure -- apply some common sense -- ASK!!! Remember, sysops can be held liable for some of the suggested stupidity previously posted in this, and other, echoes. DO NOT post anything on construction of any form of weapons in this echo, especially chemical or explosive. At best, these are technical issues. At worst, such posts may be illegal. Violation of this is cause for immediate ejection from the echo. If you are going to post copyrighted material, get permission first. Neil Shulman has made it known that he does NOT want his writings posted. Therefore, anyone who posts any Shulman writings will get ejected. And, the poster will be held liable for their own actions. 8) No religious or ethnic slurs, or use of derogatory sound bites will be tolerated. Middle Eastern politics are OFF TOPIC and discussion of same will be dealt with accordingly. 9) Any discussion about the overthrow of the government will be frowned upon. The moderator of this echo understands that some reference may be made on this subject when discussing Jeffersonian ideology. Just do your best here... Any complaints/suggestions about the rules, the moderation, etc. should be sent to the moderator, Jim Westbrook (1:382/29.0), via netmail. Discussion of the echo rules in the echo is off-topic. Dredging up old problems will get you a vacation or a feed cut free of charge! Updated 03-31-97 Jim Westbrook (1:382/29.0) jim.westbrook@29.ima.infomail.com (512)837-0953 BBS/FAX number --- GoldED 2.40.P0623+ * Origin: JimNet - Austin, TX (512)837-0953 (1:382/29) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 185 RIGHT/BEAR ARMS Ref: EEX00012Date: 10/28/97 From: TOM ENRIGHT Time: 07:11am \/To: SEAN RYAN (Read 1 times) Subj: The Second Amendment and -=> On 10-27-97 06:44 Sean Ryan said to All <=- SR> There has been a lot of talk about the "right to bear arms" and such. SR> "You can't take my guns, I have a Constitutional right to it". I find SR> it interesting that the Supreme Court has NEVER interpreted the Second SR> Amendment as an individual's right to own firearms. It has ALWAYS SR> interpreted it as the right of a state to have a militia (National SR> Guard). If your teachers told you that they were either lying or incompetent. Think about it. Do you seriously think that "the people" in the 2nd Amendment are different from "the people" in all the other amendments or the main body of the Constitution? To take that position would be legally, morally and philosophically inconsistent. As far as case law goes, you need to do some reading. The following is from the United States Senate Judiciary Committee Report on the 2nd Amendment of 1992. --------------------------------------------------------- The United States Supreme Court has only three times commented upon the meaning of the second amendment to our constitution. The first comment, in Dred Scott, indicated strongly that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right; the Court noted that, were it to hold free blacks to be entitled to equality of citizenship, they would be entitled to keep and carry arms wherever they went. The second, in Miller vs United States, indicated that a court cannot take judicial notice that a short-barrelled shotgun is covered by the second amendment--but the Court did not indicate that National Guard status is in any way required for protection by that amendment, and indeed defined "militia" to include all citizens able to bear arms. The third, a footnote in Lewis vs United States, indicated only that "these legislative restrictions on the use of firearms"--a ban on possession by felons--were permissible. ------------------------------------------------------------- In June 1997 Justice Clarence Thomas commented on the 2nd Amendment in a concurring opinion written when the Supreme Court found the Brady Bill unconstitutional. While the majority opinion was written by Justice Antonin Scalia, of particular note was a concurring opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas. In siding with the majority, Thomas noted that, along with the Tenth Amendment, "[t]he Second Amendment similarly appears to contain an express limitation on the government's authority," and that the "Federal Government's regulatory scheme...at least as it pertains to the possession of firearms, runs afoul of that amendment's protections." Your teachers need to go back to school when it comes to identifying the militia as well. The militia is not, nor has it ever been, limited to the National Guard. United States Code, Title 10 Chapter 13: The Militia, Section 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 commissioned officers of the National Guard. (b)The classes of the militia are: (1) the organized militia, which consists of the members 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." United States Code, Title 32, Section 313: adds as members of the militia those persons under the age of 64 who are former members of the Regular Armed Forces of the nation. T.E. - San Diego ... Liberal Rule #1 - When in doubt, tell a lie. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20 [NR] --- GEcho 1.20/Pro * Origin: Guilde of High Sorcery (619)575-8249 San Diego, CA (1:202/1100)