Re: DC v Heller: Amicus Brief of the Real Linguists, Part I

Herb Martin wrote:
"Steve Krulick" <krulick@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:9xyQj.72$5X.47@xxxxxxxxxxx
Buck Mulligan wrote:
In talk.politics.guns The Lone Weasel <leehrsn@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 24, 8:55 pm, Buck Mulligan <bkmulli...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


If you've ever seen a picture of Steve
If you'd ever seen a picture of the Second Amendment in action...
Have you found the part in the Constitution that says I can't have
guns?
Strawman. It's a bogus question and you've got it backwards! You want to prove a negative? Where does the Constitution say you can't commit human sacrifices?

He's got you hear Steve

That would be "here," but he doesn't.

since the Constitution DOES say that all
powers not given to the goverment remain to the states or to the
people (individuals since clearly it cannot means states and states),

Wrong, and you are clueless as to what the Founders said:

THE STATES here, in context, are the state governments and legislatures that pre-existed the Const. THE PEOPLE here, in context, are THE PEOPLE of the WHOLE nation, the same THE PEOPLE as in WE THE PEOPLE who ordained the Constitution OUTSIDE the state legislatures, unlike the Articles of Confederation, which WAS a creation of the STATE LEGISLATURES which voted on it; the Const, by contrast, was created and passed, NOT by THE STATES' existing governments, but SPECIAL conventions OF THE PEOPLE of each state, bypassing the state govts completely!

THAT IS WHY BOTH terms are used! Sorry, but THE PEOPLE in the Const ALWAYS refers to the enfranchised body politic in its collective and political capacity, just as Bouvier (citing Story and Wilson) proves. You just claim your claim, but you offer no proof and don't refute MY evidence, because YOU CAN'T!

So you blatantly assert. But where's your PROOF?

Like, what POWERS do individuals have that were not given to the US Congress? NAME ONE! Coining money? Declaring war? Making treaties? Did INDIVIDUAL ever HAVE THOSE POWERS?

Besides confusing "people" with THE PEOPLE, a legal term of art, you clearly are ignorant of what the FOUNDERS said on this subject:

Here’s a cite from the Bouvier Law Dictionary, THE authoritative source for what terms USED in the Constitution meant.

The definition for the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA in Bouvier includes the 12 amendments ratified up to 1856:

"13. - 1. Relates to religious freedom; the liberty of the press; the right of the people to assemble and petition.

14. - 2. Secures to the people the right to bear arms.

21. - 9. Secures to the people the rights retained by them.

22.- 10. Secures the rights to the states, or to the people the rights they have not granted."

[notice, RIGHTS are secured to THE STATES!]

So here’s what Hamilton has to say in Federalist #84 (caps his):

"I shall only observe that as it is a plain dictate of common-sense, so it is also an established doctrine of political law, that "STATES NEITHER LOSE ANY OF THEIR RIGHTS, NOR ARE DISCHARGED FROM ANY OF THEIR OBLIGATIONS, BY A CHANGE IN THE FORM OF THEIR CIVIL GOVERNMENT."[9]"

See, Hamilton says that states have rights!

In late 18th Century official documentation AND deliberations, including the US Articles of Confederation, US Constitution convention and ratification conventions, Jefferson’s comments on his contribution to the BoR, and the words of prominent anti-ratificationist Luther Martin, is PROOF that the Founders certainly believed that to be so!

[I have put RIGHT or RIGHTS in upper case to make it easier to spot; they do not appear that way in the original]

The Articles of Confederation:

To all to whom these Presents shall come, we the undersigned Delegates of the States affixed to our Names send greeting.

Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.

I.The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of America".

II.Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and RIGHT, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

IX.The United States in Congress assembled, shall have the sole and exclusive RIGHT and power of determining on peace and war...

The United States in Congress assembled shall also have the sole and exclusive RIGHT and power of regulating the alloy and value of coin struck by their own authority, or by that of the respective States -- fixing the standards of weights and measures throughout the United States -- regulating the trade and managing all affairs with the Indians, not members of any of the States, provided that the legislative RIGHT of any State within its own limits be not infringed or violated...

---

Thus proving that, OFFICIALLY, at least to the authors of the AoC, that states EACH have and retain powers, jurisdictions, AND RIGHTS not expressly delegated, including legislative RIGHTS, and that the US govt and Congress have RIGHTS AND POWERS.

As the new Constitution was being created and debated, what did the participants say about whether individual states, AND the NATION of states, AND the Federal Government itself had rights?:

The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution [Elliot's Debates, Volume 5]

(http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(ed005242)))

On to the Constitutional Convention: August 18-20, 1787

In Convention. -- Mr. PINCKNEY submitted to the House, in order to be referred to the committee of detail, the following propositions: -- "The United States shall be forever considered as one body corporate and politic in law, and entitled to all the RIGHTS, privileges, and immunities, which to bodies corporate do or ought to appertain."

"To fix, and permanently establish, the seat of government of the United States, in Which they shall possess the exclusive RIGHT of soil and jurisdiction."

Mr. KING moved to insert, before the word "power," word "sole,"

giving the United States the exclusive RIGHT to declare the punishment of treason.

Mr. WILSON. In cases of a general nature, treason can only be against the United States; and in such they should have the sole RIGHT to declare the punishment;

[THUS, according to Framers of the Constitution, The United States is one body corporate with RIGHTS -- I guess collective entities DO have rights after all! -- Congress has the RIGHT of soil and jurisdiction over DC, having sole power to declare punishment is equal to the exclusive or sole RIGHT to do so.

THIS would seem to confirm that the the FEDERAL GOVT HAS RIGHTS as well as powers, and that, in at least THESE instances, the RIGHT to do something is IDENTICAL to the POWER to DO IT!]

Was this an aberration, an idiosyncratic one-time-only flub? Let’s go from Philly to Hillsborough:

The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution [Elliot's Debates, Volume 4]

(http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(ed0044)))

Debates in the Convention of the State of North Carolina, On the Adoption of the Federal Constitution.

Mr. DAVIE. It is well known that Congress had a discretionary RIGHT to raise men and money; but they had no power to do either...

The encroachments of some states on the RIGHTS of others, and of all on those of the Confederacy, are incontestable proofs of the weakness and imperfection of that system.

Mr. IREDELL. But the fact is, that they have, by degrees, increased their power to an astonishing degree, and, when they think proper to exert it, can command almost any thing they please. This great power they enjoy, by having the name of representatives of the people, and the exclusive RIGHT of originating money bills. What authority, then, will our representatives not possess, who will really represent the people, and equally have the RIGHT of originating money bills?... The circumstance of their representing the great body of the people, alone gives them great weight. This weight has great authority added to it, by their possessing the RIGHT (a RIGHT given to the people’s representatives in Congress) of exclusively originating money bills...

It says, expressly, that the House of Representatives shall consist of members chosen for two years, and that the Senate shall be composed of senators chosen for six years. At the expiration of these terms, the RIGHT of election reverts to the people AND the states;

Mr. SPENCER. Mr. Chairman, it appears to me that this clause, giving this control over the time, place, and manner, of holding elections, to Congress, does away the right of the people to choose the representatives every second year, and impairs the RIGHT of the state legislatures to choose the senators...

.... and their knowledge of the ultimate RIGHT of Congress to collect taxes would stimulate their exertions to raise money. But if the power of taxation be given in the first instance to Congress, the state legislatures will be liable to be counteracted by the general government in all their operations... The RIGHT of Congress to lay taxes ultimately, in case of non-compliance with requisitions, would operate as a penalty, and would stimulate the states to discharge their quotas faithfully.

Gov. JOHNSTON. Mr. Chairman, in my opinion, if there be any difference between this Constitution and the Confederation, with respect to treaties, the Constitution is more safe than the Confederation. We know that two members from each state have a RIGHT, by the Confederation, to give the vote of that state, and two thirds of the states have a RIGHT also to make treaties.

Mr. DAVIE. Mr. Chairman, although treaties are mere conventional acts between the contracting parties, yet, by the law of nations, they are the supreme law of the land to their respective citizens or subjects... The power of making treaties has, in all countries and governments, been placed in the executive departments... ; because, by the Confederation, Congress had power to make treaties. It was one of those original RIGHTS of sovereignty which were vested in them; and it was not the deficiency of constitutional authority in Congress to make treaties that produced the necessity of a law to declare their validity; but it was owing to the entire imbecility of the Confederation.

Mr. SPENCER. I can see no power that can keep up the little remains of the power of the states. Our RIGHTS are not guarded. There is no declaration of rights, to secure to every member of the society those unalienable rights which ought not to be given up to any government. Such a bill of rights would be a check upon men in power. Instead of such a bill of rights, this Constitution has a clause which may warrant encroachments on the power of the respective state legislatures. I know it is said that what is not given up to the United States will be retained by the individual states. I know it ought to be so, and should be so understood; but, sir, it is not declared to be so.

In the Confederation it is expressly declared that all RIGHTS and powers, of any kind whatever, of the several STATES, which are not given up to the United States, are expressly and absolutely retained, to be enjoyed by the STATES.

[Let me repeat that one! "ALL RIGHTS AND POWERS, of any kind whatever, OF the several STATES... not given up... are... retained... by the STATES"!]

In order to constitute this security, it appears to me there ought to be such a clause in the Constitution as there was in the Confederation, expressly declaring, that every power, jurisdiction, and RIGHT, which are not given up by it, remain in the STATES. Such a clause would render a bill of rights unnecessary. But as there is no such clause, I contend that there should be a bill of rights, ascertaining and securing the great RIGHTS of the states and people.

Mr. MACLAINE. It would be very extraordinary to have a bill of rights, because the powers of Congress are expressly defined; and the very definition of them is as valid and efficacious a check as a bill of rights could be, without the dangerous implication of a bill of rights. The powers of Congress are limited and enumerated. We say we have given them those powers, but we do not say we have given them more. We retain all those RIGHTS which we have not given away to the general government.

[Is there any doubt, in those last cites, that the RIGHTS not given to the central government are IDENTICAL to the POWERS? That RIGHTS can remain in the STATES? THAT STATES HAVE RIGHTS AND POWERS?]

For the views of a leading anti-Federalist:

Luther Martin Writings and Biography

(http://www.lexrex.com/bios/lmartin.htm)

The Genuine Information, delivered to the Legislature of the State of Maryland, relative to the Proceedings of the General Convention, held at Philadelphia, in 1787, by Luther Martin, Esq., Attorney-General of Maryland, and one of the Delegates in the said Convention.

(http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(ed001181)))

1. Resolved, That it is the opinion of this committee, that a national government ought to be established, consisting of a supreme legislative, judiciary, and executive...

5. That each branch ought to possess the RIGHT of originating acts.

6. That the national legislature ought to be empowered to enjoy the legislative RIGHTS vested in Congress by the Confederation, and moreover to legislate in all cases to which the separate states are incompetent, or in which the harmony of the United States may be interrupted by the exercise of individual legislation;…

10. That the national executive shall have a RIGHT to negative any legislative act, which shall not afterwards be passed unless by two thirds of each branch of the national legislature.

It was denied that the equality of suffrage was originally agreed to on principles of necessity or expediency; on the contrary, that it was adopted on the principles of the RIGHTS of men, and the RIGHTS of states, which were then well known, and which then influenced our conduct, although now they seem to be forgotten. For this, the Journals of Congress were appealed to... the most convincing proof it was agreed to, and adopted, not from necessity, but upon a full conviction that, according to the principles of free government, the states had a RIGHT to that equality of suffrage...

.... we would not labor under the imputation of being unwilling to form a strong and energetic federal government; but we would publish the system which we approved, and also that which we opposed, and leave it to our country and the world at large to judge, between us, who best understood the RIGHTS of freemen and free states, and who best advocated them;

The states have a RIGHT to an equality of representation. This is secured to us by our present Articles of Confederation; we are in possession of this RIGHT. It is now to be torn from us. What security can you give us that, when you get the power the proposed system will give you, when you have men and money, you will not force from the states that equality of suffrage, in the second branch, which you now deny to be their RIGHT, and only give up from absolute necessity?

.... that it is the state governments which are to watch over and protect the RIGHTS of the individual, whether rich or poor, or of moderate circumstances, and in which the democratic and aristocratic influence or principles are to be so blended, modified, and checked, as to prevent oppression and injury --

that the federal government is to guard and protect the states and their RIGHTS, and to regulate their common concerns...

Another consideration, Mr. Speaker, it was thought, ought to have great weight to prove that the smaller states cannot depend on the Senate for the preservation of their RIGHTS, either against large and ambitious states, or against an ambitious, aspiring President.

It was my opinion, sir, that the states ought not to be totally deprived of the RIGHT to emit bills of credit, and that, as we had not given an authority to the general government for that purpose, it was the more necessary to retain it in the states.

That it was inconsistent with the RIGHTS of free and independent states to have their territory dismembered without their consent, was the principal argument used by the opponents of this proposition.

That it was inconsistent with the RIGHTS of free and independent states to have their territory dismembered without their consent, was the principal argument used by the opponents of this proposition. The truth of the objection we readily admitted, but at the same time insisted that it was not more inconsistent with the RIGHTS of free and independent states than that inequality of suffrage and power which the larger states had extorted from the others; and that, if the smaller states yielded up their RIGHTS in that instance, they were entitled to demand from the states of extensive territory a surrender of their RIGHTS in this instance; and in a particular manner, as it was equally necessary for the true interest and happiness of the citizens of their own states, as of the Union. But, sir, although, when the large states demanded undue and improper sacrifices to be made to their pride and ambition, they treated the RIGHTS of free states with more contempt than ever a British Parliament treated the RIGHTS of her colonial establishment, yet, when a reasonable and necessary sacrifice was asked from them, they spurned the idea with ineffable disdain. They then perfectly understood the full value and the sacred obligation of state RIGHTS, and at the least attempt to infringe them, where they were concerned, they were tremblingly alive, and agonized at every pore.

The people of the different states never made any objection to the manner in which the Articles of Confederation were formed or ratified, or to the mode by which alterations were to be made in that government: with the RIGHTS of their respective states they wished not to interfere. Nor do I believe the people, in their individual capacity, would ever have expected or desired to have been appealed to on the present occasion, in violation of the RIGHTS of their respective states, if the favorers of the proposed Constitution, imagining they had a better chance of forcing it to be adopted by a hasty appeal to the people at large, (who could not be so good judges of the dangerous consequence,) had not insisted upon this mode.

When I took my seat in the Convention, I found them attempting to bring forward a system which, I was sure, never had entered into the contemplation of those I had the honor to represent, and which, upon the fullest consideration, I considered not only injurious to the interest and RIGHTS of this state, but also incompatible with the political happiness and freedom of the states in general.

I, sir, am in that predicament. I have the honor to hold an appointment in this state. Had it been considered any objection, I presume I should not have been appointed to the Convention. If it could have had any effect on my mind, it would only be that of warming my heart with gratitude, and rendering me more anxious to promote the true interest of that state which has conferred on me the obligation, and to heighten my guilt, had I joined in sacrificing its essential RIGHTS.

[And, as a kicker, here’s some of what Martin had to say about the militia; HIS argument mentions the ONLY PURPOSE for which a militia amendment was sought by the anti-Feds, the ONLY argument EVER mentioned in ALL the militia debates:]

These observations, sir, procured from some of the members an open avowal of those reasons by which we believed, before, that they were actuated. They said that, as the states would be opposed to the general government, and at enmity with it -- which, as I have already observed, they assumed as a principle -- if the militia was under the control and the authority of the respective states, it would enable them to thwart and oppose the general government.

They said the states ought to be at the mercy of the general government, and therefore that the militia ought to be put under its power, and not suffered to remain under the power of the respective states. In answer to these declarations, it was urged that if, after having retained to the general government the great powers already granted -- and among those, that of raising and keeping up regular troops without limitation -- the power over the militia should be taken away from the states, and also given to the general government, it ought to be considered as the last coup de grace to the state governments; that it must be the most convincing proof, the advocates of this system design the destruction of the state governments, and that no professions to the contrary ought to be trusted; -- and that every state in the Union ought to reject such a system with indignation, since, if the general government should attempt to oppress and enslave them, they could not have any possible means of self-defence;

[Hmmm. Is THIS what was meant by "self-defense"? Is this an INDIVIDUAL right to private self-defense or a collective right? Whose right is being infringed? Behold:]

because the proposed system, taking away from the states the RIGHT of organizing, arming, and disciplining of the militia, the first attempt made by a state to put the militia in a situation to counteract the arbitrary measures of the general government would be construed into an act to rebellion or treason, and Congress would instantly march their troops into the state.

[Ah, it’s a RIGHT of the states to organize, arm, and discipline their militias! It’s a STATE RIGHT of public COMMON defense, where they defend THEMSELVES! This is what a leading anti-Federalist thought and THEY were the ones pushing FOR an amendment to satisfy THIS concern ONLY; IF there were another concern, wouldn’t he mention it to bolster his argument?]

It was further observed that, when a government wishes to deprive their citizens of freedom, and reduce them to slavery, it generally makes use of a standing army for that purpose, and leaves the militia in a situation as contemptible as possible, lest they might oppose its arbitrary designs--that in this system we give the general government every provision it could wish for, and even invite it to subvert the liberties of the states and their citizens,

[So states not only have RIGHTS, they have LIBERTIES too!]

since we give it the RIGHT to increase and keep up a standing army as numerous as it would wish, and, by placing the militia under its power, enable it to leave the militia totally unorganized, undisciplined, and even to disarm them;

[So the Federal Government has the RIGHT to keep a standing army, and can "disarm" the militia when under ITS power by FAILING to arm it, as George Mason said: "The militia may be here destroyed by that method which has been practiced in other parts of the world before; that is, by rendering them useless -- by DISARMING them. Under various pretenses, Congress may neglect to provide for arming and disciplining the militia; and the state governments cannot do it, for Congress has an exclusive right to arm them..."]

while the citizens, so far from complaining of this neglect, might even esteem it a favor in the general government, as thereby they would be freed from the burden of militia duties, and left to their own private occupations and pleasures.

---

Jefferson’s seventh letter regarding his contribution to the BoR process was written to Dr. Joseph Priestley, June 19, 1802, looking back at his role. It, like the other six letters, which were contemporary appeals for a Bill of Rights (written 12/20/87, 2/7/88, 2/12/88, 7/31/88, 3/13/89, and 3/18/89), can be found by date at: http://www.constitution.org/tj/jeff.htm

"One passage, in the paper you enclosed me, must be corrected. It is the following, "and all say it was yourself more than any other individual, that planned and established it" i. e., the Constitution. I was in Europe when the Constitution was planned, and never saw it till after it was established. On receiving it I wrote strongly to Mr. Madison, urging the want of provision for the freedom of religion, freedom of the press, trial by jury, habeas corpus, the substitution of militia for a standing army, and an express reservation to the States of all rights not specifically granted to the Union. He accordingly moved in the first session of Congress for these amendments, which were agreed to and ratified by the States as they now stand. This is all the hand I had in what related to the Constitution."

So, "an express reservation to the States of all rights not specifically granted to the Union"!

HERE in TJ’s OWN words is MORE proof that the 10TH AMEN equated POWERS with RIGHTS and put RIGHTS in a COLLECTIVE frame! It proves that TJ himself believed that STATES had rights, and the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT had rights!!! Now, this is NOT before 1789 and speculation or debate; this is IN 1802, when TJ was already President of the US! And here HE is commenting BACKWARDS on the Constitution and BoR of over a decade earlier and STILL talking about STATES RESERVING RIGHTS NOT GRANTED TO THE UNION, meaning the concept and understanding of the terms was the same in 1802 as it was in 1789 and 1787!!! That is, the mere passage of the Constitution did NOT eradicate the concept or understanding of those beliefs held before the Constitution. They MAY have used the word "powers," but the concept of RIGHTS was still understood as being something STATES and THE UNION could RESERVE, or GRANT!!!

So, was TJ deluded, mad, mistaken, disingenuous, senile, confused, ignorant??? Or was he merely expressing the obvious and universally-held understanding of what BOTH terms meant in this context, and confirming that when Madison "accordingly moved in the first session of Congress for THESE amendments," that THAT was what Madison submitted as his intended purposes and understandings of their meaning! That is, according to TJ, Madison submitted an amendment for "the substitution of militia for a standing army" and another for "an express reservation to the States of all rights not specifically granted to the Union"! And it was THESE [purposes behind the] amendments "which were agreed to and ratified by the States as they now stand."

In the first letter, 12/20/87, TJ says: "I have a right to nothing, which another has a right to take away; and Congress will have a right to take away trials by jury in all civil cases." Again Congress, which is a "collective" government entity, and NOT an individual, has a RIGHT!

I trust this cumulative evidence will dispel forever the myth that, to the authors of the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, Constitution, and Bill of Rights, rights could ONLY be individual in nature, be held only BY individuals, and that they encompassed ALL individuals in ALL cases and, further, that collective rights can’t exist, and are some fictional creation of late 20th century liberals!

I repeat the cite from US v. CRUIKSHANK:

"Citizens are the members of the political community to which they belong. They are the people who compose the community, and who, in their associated capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of a government for the promotion of their general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as their collective rights. In the formation of a government, the people may confer upon it such powers as they choose. The government, when so formed, may, and when called upon should, exercise all the powers it has for the protection of the rights of its citizens and the people within its jurisdiction; but it can exercise no other. The duty of a government to afford protection is limited always by the power it possesses for that purpose." -- US v. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)


Then there's the further evidence in Bouvier's Law Dictionary, where it cites Joseph Story, perhaps the most revered Constitutional scholar of the first half of the 19th century, and HIS cites of Justice James Wilson -- signer of the Declaration of Independence, member of the Constitutional Committee on Detail (which put the Constitution in final form), appointed by Washington to the first Supreme Court, and a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania -- hence as final and unimpeachable a source as can exist:

("The Bouvier Law Dictionary remains the basis for the interpretation of Law since the founding of the American nation. In questions of law regarding legal definitions from that period it remains the final arbiter of any disputed interpretation of that law." http://uslawbooks.com/ajs/bouvier2001.pdf)

Judge Story discusses the relationship between "the people" and "the state" (equivalent expressions) and quotes Justice Wilson with respect to the rights of states (a state being a "moral person"):

"§ 208. In like manner the word "state" is used in various senses. In its most enlarged sense it means the people composing a particular nation or community. In this sense the state means the whole people, united into one body politic; and the state, and the people of the state, are equivalent expressions. Mr. Justice Wilson, in his Law Lectures, uses the word "state" in its broadest sense. "In free states," says he, "the people form an artificial person, or body politic, the highest end [and] noblest, that can be known. They form that moral person, which in one of my former lectures, I described, as a complete body of free, natural persons, united together for their common benefit; as having an understanding and a will; as deliberating, and resolving, and acting; as possessed of interests, which it ought to manage; as enjoying rights, which it ought to maintain; and as lying under obligations, which it ought to perform. To this moral person, we assign, by way of eminence, the dignified appellation of STATE." -- Joseph Story, "Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States," 1833.


---

So, if you want to refute Justice Wilson and ALL the Founders and authorities who PROVED that rights can be had by collective entities such as the collective body politic (THE PEOPLE), or THE STATE, or even GOVERNMENTS and LEGISLATURES, simply show where these cites are NOT accurate, that they are NOT from bona fide source authorities, and that YOU have superior sources that say otherwise.

Or else admit you are an ignorant and clueless ninny who just makes up silly claims and tries to palm them off as fact.

and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is long recognized and
explicitly reference in the Constitutions of 44 states.

But most of those were written AFTER the US Const, and whatever THEY say has no bearing on what was MEANT by the authors of the US Const:

"Most if not all the States have adopted provisions touching the right to keep and bear arms. Differences in the language employed in these have naturally led to somewhat variant conclusions concerning the scope of the right guaranteed. But none of them seem to afford any material support for the challenged ruling of the court below." US v. Miller, 1939

And many of the states have RE-written their constitutions since 1963 under NRA prompting, precisely to CHANGE the language to make the words "bear arms" go from their original militia meaning to INCLUDE hunting, sport, and personal usages other than militia service, in a clear attempt to subvert the original purpose and meaning.


Human sacrifices is the STRAWMAN YOU just introduced as
it is not a right in any state, in our heritage from English law, nor
really anywhere civilized.

It's an EXAMPLE of one of an INFINITE number of things that are simply NOT in the Const, hence, it shows how silly his claim of "WHERE does it say in the Const that I DON'T have the right to... whatever"! It's up to one to show where a right or power IS in the Const, not where the negative isn't!


In this regard, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is long recognized
by our laws and explicitly protected by the Constitution.

Yep, for the STATE MILITIAS to be maintained by the collective body politic, just as the COURTS keep ruling [returning the evidence you snipped away because it refutes all your silly blatant assertions:

Since YOU wish to claim some hypothetical right, it's incumbent on YOU to show where YOU, specifically as an individual, HAVE such an enumerated and individualized right in unambiguous, overt, and specific language!

WHERE in the Constitution does it say that YOU, as an individual can have absolute rights to OWN or CARRY or USE any particular weapon, any time, any place, any context? In fact, where in the Const are GUNS even mentioned as specific objects that can be "had"?

The 2nd Amen, indeed the WHOLE Const is simply silent on
the matter of individuals owning firearms! It neither permits
NOR prohibits their possession and use! That's because the 2nd
Amen is simply a MILITIA Amendment that has no concern about
individuals owning or using guns independent of militia service!
THAT concern is left to the states, under the powers/rights
reserved to them under the 10th Amen.

All you have to do is read, oh, any of the several dozen
Appellate cases that refer to the handful of 2nd Amen SCotUS
cases to see that!

But you won't find ANY SCotUS case where the court emphatically
states that any individual has any absolute or fundamental right
to own any weapon he chooses:

In the last SCotUS case in which the 2nd Amen was specifically
addressed, some 40 years after Miller, U.S. Supreme Court LEWIS
v. UNITED STATES, 445 U.S. 55 (1980):

Section 1202 (a) (1) clearly meets that test. Congress, as its
expressed purpose in enacting Title VII reveals, 18 U.S.C. App.
1201, was concerned that the receipt and possession of a firearm
by a felon constitutes a threat, among other things, to the
continued and effective operation of the Government of the
United States. The legislative history of the gun control laws
discloses Congress' worry about the easy availability of
firearms, especially to those persons who pose a threat to
community peace.

[ Footnote 8 ] These legislative restrictions on the use of
firearms are neither based upon constitutionally suspect
criteria, nor do they trench upon any constitutionally protected
liberties. See United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178 (1939)
(the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a
firearm that does not have "some reasonable relationship to [445
U.S. 55, 66] the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated
militia")


and the Circuits have confirmed this:

HICKMAN v. BLOCK No. 94-55836. United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.
Decided April 5, 1996.

We follow our sister circuits in holding that the Second
Amendment is a RIGHT held by the states, and does not protect
the possession of a weapon by a private citizen.

Consulting the text and history of the amendment, the Court
found that the right to keep and bear arms is meant solely to
protect the RIGHT OF THE STATES to keep and maintain armed
militia.

The Court's understanding follows a plain reading of the
Amendment's text. The Amendment's second clause declares that
the goal is to preserve the security of "a free state;" its
first clause establishes the premise that a "well-regulated
militia" is necessary to this end. Thus it is only in
furtherance of state security that "the right of the people
to keep and bear arms" is finally proclaimed.


LOVE v. PEPERSACK No. 94-1582. United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.
Decided Feb. 3, 1995.

Citing law review articles, Love argues that she has an
individual federal constitutional right to "keep and bear" a
handgun, and Maryland may not infringe upon this right. She is
wrong on both counts. The Second Amendment does not apply to the
states. Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 6 S.Ct. 580, 29 L.
Ed. 615 (1886); United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 23
L.Ed. 588 (p.124) (1876). Moreover, even as against federal
regulation, the amendment does not confer an absolute individual
right to bear any type of firearm. In 1939, the Supreme Court
held that the federal statute prohibiting possession of a
sawed-off shotgun was constitutional, because the defendant had
not shown that his possession of such a gun bore a "reasonable
relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well
regulated militia." United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178,
59 S.Ct. 816, 818, 83 L.Ed. 1206 (1939). Since then, the lower
federal courts have uniformly held that the Second Amendment
preserves a collective, rather than individual, right.


QUILICI v. VILLAGE OF MORTON GROVE
Nos. 82-1045, 82-1076 and 82-1132.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Decided Dec. 6, 1982. As Amended Dec. 10, 1982.

The second amendment provides 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." U.S. Const. amend. II. Construing this language
according to its plain meaning, it seems clear that the right to
bear arms is inextricably connected to the preservation of a
militia.

Under the controlling authority of Miller we conclude that
the right to keep and bear handguns is not guaranteed by the
second amendment. Because the second amendment is not applicable
to Morton Grove and because possession of handguns by
individuals is not part of the right to keep and bear arms,
Ordinance No. 81-11 does not violate the second amendment.


UNITED STATES v. Francis J. WARIN.
No. 75-1734. United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Decided Feb. 4, 1976.

"Since the Second Amendment right "to keep and bear Arms"
applies only to the RIGHT OF THE STATE to maintain a militia and
not to the individual's right to bear arms, there can be no
serious claim to any express constitutional right of an
individual to possess a firearm...

"It would unduly extend this opinion to attempt to deal with
every argument made by defendant and amicus curiae, Second
Amendment Foundation, all of which are based on the erroneous
supposition that the Second Amendment is concerned with the
RIGHTS of individuals rather than THOSE OF THE STATES or that
defendant's automatic membership in the "sedentary militia" of
Ohio brings him within the reach of its guarantees."


UNITED STATES v. TOT.
No. 7961. Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Decided Oct. 28, 1942.

It is abundantly clear both from the discussions of this
amendment contemporaneous with its proposal and adoption and
those of learned writers since that this amendment, unlike
those providing for protection of free speech and freedom of
religion, was not adopted with individual rights in mind, but as
a protection for the STATES in the maintenance of their militia
organizations against possible encroachments by the federal
power.

---

There is NOTHING in the drafting and debating and passage of the
2nd Amen that speaks about "individual gun ownership"
independent of militia service! It's all about state versus
federal control and arming of the militia, and the virtues of
militias versus standing armies, since it's a MILITIA amendment
and NOT a GUN amendment!

Miller confirms this:

The SCotUS in Miller said the 2nd Amen must be viewed thusly:

"With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render
possible the effectiveness of such forces [the well regulated
militia described in the previous paragraph] the declaration and
guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be
interpreted and applied with that end in view."


--

Steven Krulick / SK@xxxxxxxxxxx
Ellenville NY / 12428-130727 / Earth
845-647-2868 / http://Krulick.Com

--

SURVIVAL... through
Ecological Wisdom & Sustainable Action;
PEACE... through
Respect for Diversity & Non-Violence;
JUSTICE (Economic & Social)... through
Less Privilege & More Democracy;
COMMUNITY... through
Localization & Cooperative Responsibility.

---

The SMART Party
(SMART = Sustainably Managed Allocation of Resources and Tools)
More at TheSmartParty.Net
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Quiestion
    ... Here's another perspective on the Constitution for you guys to read. ... They feared that it would create an overbearing central government, ... - the very essence of federalism - against the Federalists, ... subject to being "corrected by any power above them." ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: DC v Heller: Amicus Brief of the Real Linguists, Part I
    ... What is the purpose of a semicolon? ... So you're saying no amendment to the US Constitution can ... I've been saying for years that the second amendment recognizes two ... government, under the authority of government itself; ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: DC v Heller: Amicus Brief of the Real Linguists, Part I
    ... What is the purpose of a semicolon? ... So you're saying no amendment to the US Constitution can ... I've been saying for years that the second amendment recognizes two ... government, under the authority of government itself; ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Hollow Rules
    ... Though the Constitution talks about what the federal ... government is supposed to do, and what it's NOT supposed to do, the ... inside the system receives some measure of money and/or power from ... law, and "case law" all specifically ...
    (misc.taxes)
  • Rick Stanley RATIONALE FOR LETHAL FORCE AGAINST GOVERNMENT AGENTS WHO USURP POWER
    ... RATIONALE FOR LETHAL FORCE AGAINST GOVERNMENT AGENTS WHO USURP POWER ... > generally, for individual rights. ... > "The Constitution of the United States was ordained, it is true, by ...
    (talk.politics.guns)