> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>
> ----------------------
> hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html
- ----------------------
hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 18:46:10 -0800
From: David Woodbury <woodbury@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: gun control
At 7:55 PM -0600 12/30/99, northwoods wrote:
>It says:
>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.
>
>How do you arrive at the conclusion that because it states:"a well regulated
>militia is necessary to the security of a free state"
>that the statement "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not
>be infringed." is not referring to individual rights?
As I read it, it is a single sentence, in two main parts. The opening
clause, "a well regulated militia," is the subject, which subject is
necessary to the security of a free state. The second part of the
sentence ensures that the subject of the amendment will always be
possible.
Why didn't they just cut out the first part and let the whole amendment read:
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed," unless they intended for this right to be in the context
of a well-regulated militia?
It's an interpretation.
David
- ----------------------
hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 19:56:39 -0700
From: Forrest Smouse <smouse@ubtanet.com>
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Re: dead horse gun discussion
- --------------C53045A4E8AAA9D1A8507BC0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I think that most of us would agree that the firearms used by the average
citizens in the 1830's were the same as those used by the militia of the same
time period. We have an example of the state taking the rights of it's citizens
to keep and bear arms and its consequences right here in the U.S. 1838 in the
state of Missouri, Governor Boggs required all Mormons to surrender their
firearms to the State. After complying with the order the Mormons were then
barred from voting. The Governor then signed an extermination order against the
Mormons. On the 30 of Oct. 1838 a small Mormon community called Haun's Mill was
attacked under Boggs orders and 19 Mormons were killed and 12 were wounded. The
Mormons leadership was arrested and ordered by Boggs to be shot by firing squad.
Certain non mormons in the Missouri militia prevented this act. This
unbelievable act happened in the US were such acts are not supposed to happen and
are supposed to be protected. My fear is that these rights are all but gone and
that we will shortly see an increase and renewal of human right violations
occuring in this country under the guise of State Protection !
Forrest #1691
David Woodbury wrote:
> At 4:52 AM +0000 12/29/99, John Dearing wrote:
> >I do believe the point of this reference was to illustrate how
> >registering firearms, "just so the government would know who owned
> >them" can be, and was used to find out where those firearms were,
> >then forced the owners to turn them in or to become criminals.
>
> Sorry to keep dragging this out, but the "point" of the reference was
> the concluding comment in the message to which I responded. Summing
> up the reference, Texan said:
> "What is happening in California is evidence
> of what is called encroachment, which has as
> its eventual goal the law abiding citizen being
> completely disarmed."
>
> Incidentally, if I read Texan's excerpt correctly, the only people
> being asked to turn in guns were those who already owned these
> so-called military style firearms, but who failed to register them in
> the 2+ years allotted. Whether or not you agree that the Attorney
> General had the authority to tell people they could register them
> after that 1992 date (evidently a court disagreed), the fact remains
> that the state of California allowed everyone to *keep* their
> weapons, except those who failed to meet the extraordinarily generous
> deadline (between 1989 and 1992, according to Texan's excerpt).
>
> >Any registration scheme can, and based on recent history, will be
> >used for the purpose of confiscation.
>
> Seems to me it is just the opposite. Is there anything you can point
> me to which shows a trend toward confiscating the registered weapons
> of citizens? The example used here deals with 1,600 guns that the
> owners originally failed to register by the deadline (I think the
> Johnny-come-latelys did get screwed, but they could easily have
> avoided the problem by complying with the law initially). But surely
> the millions of registered weapons in this country have remained
> legally secure in their owners' possession just as long as they were
> legally registered. What recent history are you referring to
> (admittedly, it's not something I follow very closely).
>
> >I do believe the Second Amendment contains the phrase "the right of
> >the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", according
> >to the Thordike Barnhart Dictionary, an infringement is anything
> >that hinders, violates, encroaches upon, or intrudes upon, in this
> >case, the lawful ownership of firearms.
>
> And the courts, in light of the *entire* sentence (referencing
> militias), have consistently ruled that the amendment in no way
> suggests an inalienable personal right for a citizen to possess
> whatever weaponry they wish without some legislative constraints.
>
> >That means that the government does not have the legitimate
> >authority to, in any way, restrict the ownership of firearms to it's
> >law abiding citizens.
>
> That's one interpretation. Just not the one that most courts have arrived at.
>
> David
>
> ----------------------
> hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html
- --------------C53045A4E8AAA9D1A8507BC0
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
I think that most of us would agree that the firearms used by the average
citizens in the 1830's were the same as those used by the militia
of the same time period. We have an example of the state taking the rights
of it's citizens to keep and bear arms and its consequences right here
in the U.S. 1838 in the state of Missouri, Governor Boggs required
all Mormons to surrender their firearms to the State. After complying
with the order the Mormons were then barred from voting. The Governor
then signed an extermination order against the Mormons. On the 30
of Oct. 1838 a small Mormon community called Haun's Mill was attacked under
Boggs orders and 19 Mormons were killed and 12 were wounded. The
Mormons leadership was arrested and ordered by Boggs to be shot by firing
squad. Certain non mormons in the Missouri militia prevented this
act. This unbelievable act happened in the US were such acts are
not supposed to happen and are supposed to be protected. My fear
is that these rights are all but gone and that we will shortly see an increase
and renewal of human right violations occuring in this country under the
guise of State <b><u>Protection</u></b> !
<p>Forrest #1691
<p>David Woodbury wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>At 4:52 AM +0000 12/29/99, John Dearing wrote:
<br>>I do believe the point of this reference was to illustrate how
<br>>registering firearms, "just so the government would know who owned
<br>>them" can be, and was used to find out where those firearms were,
<br>>then forced the owners to turn them in or to become criminals.
<p>Sorry to keep dragging this out, but the "point" of the reference was
<br>the concluding comment in the message to which I responded. Summing
<br>up the reference, Texan said:
<br> "What is happening in California is
evidence
<br> of what is called encroachment, which
has as
<br> its eventual goal the law abiding citizen
being
<br> completely disarmed."
<p>Incidentally, if I read Texan's excerpt correctly, the only people
<br>being asked to turn in guns were those who already owned these
<br>so-called military style firearms, but who failed to register them
in
<br>the 2+ years allotted. Whether or not you agree that the Attorney
<br>General had the authority to tell people they could register them
<br>after that 1992 date (evidently a court disagreed), the fact remains
<br>that the state of California allowed everyone to *keep* their
<br>weapons, except those who failed to meet the extraordinarily generous
<br>deadline (between 1989 and 1992, according to Texan's excerpt).
<p>>Any registration scheme can, and based on recent history, will be
<br>>used for the purpose of confiscation.
<p>Seems to me it is just the opposite. Is there anything you can point
<br>me to which shows a trend toward confiscating the registered weapons
<br>of citizens? The example used here deals with 1,600 guns that the
<br>owners originally failed to register by the deadline (I think the
<br>Johnny-come-latelys did get screwed, but they could easily have
<br>avoided the problem by complying with the law initially). But surely
<br>the millions of registered weapons in this country have remained
<br>legally secure in their owners' possession just as long as they were
<br>legally registered. What recent history are you referring to
<br>(admittedly, it's not something I follow very closely).
<p>>I do believe the Second Amendment contains the phrase "the right of
<br>>the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", according
<br>>to the Thordike Barnhart Dictionary, an infringement is anything
<br>>that hinders, violates, encroaches upon, or intrudes upon, in this
<br>>case, the lawful ownership of firearms.
<p>And the courts, in light of the *entire* sentence (referencing
<br>militias), have consistently ruled that the amendment in no way
<br>suggests an inalienable personal right for a citizen to possess
<br>whatever weaponry they wish without some legislative constraints.
<p>>That means that the government does not have the legitimate
<br>>authority to, in any way, restrict the ownership of firearms to it's
<br>>law abiding citizens.
<p>That's one interpretation. Just not the one that most courts have arrived
at.
<p>David
<p>----------------------
<br>hist_text list info: <a href="http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html">http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html</a></blockquote>
</html>
- --------------C53045A4E8AAA9D1A8507BC0--
- ----------------------
hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 23:31:26 -0600
From: Victoria Pate <vapate@juno.com>
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Re: dead horse gun discussion
My fear is that these rights are all
> but gone and
> that we will shortly see an increase and renewal of human right
> violations
> occuring in this country under the guise of State Protection !
>
> Forrest #1691
As in the travesty of David Koresh and the Branch
Davidians, comprised of many women and children,
who were burned to death in Waco, Texas by Big
Brother in order to "protect them from themselves".
Texan
>
> David Woodbury wrote:
>
> > At 4:52 AM +0000 12/29/99, John Dearing wrote:
> > >I do believe the point of this reference was to illustrate how
> > >registering firearms, "just so the government would know who
> owned
> > >them" can be, and was used to find out where those firearms were,
> > >then forced the owners to turn them in or to become criminals.
> >
> > Sorry to keep dragging this out, but the "point" of the reference
> was
> > the concluding comment in the message to which I responded.
> Summing
> > up the reference, Texan said:
> > "What is happening in California is evidence
> > of what is called encroachment, which has as
> > its eventual goal the law abiding citizen being
> > completely disarmed."
> >
> > Incidentally, if I read Texan's excerpt correctly, the only people
> > being asked to turn in guns were those who already owned these
> > so-called military style firearms, but who failed to register them
> in
> > the 2+ years allotted. Whether or not you agree that the Attorney
> > General had the authority to tell people they could register them
> > after that 1992 date (evidently a court disagreed), the fact
> remains
> > that the state of California allowed everyone to *keep* their
> > weapons, except those who failed to meet the extraordinarily
> generous
> > deadline (between 1989 and 1992, according to Texan's excerpt).
> >
> > >Any registration scheme can, and based on recent history, will be
> > >used for the purpose of confiscation.
> >
> > Seems to me it is just the opposite. Is there anything you can
> point
> > me to which shows a trend toward confiscating the registered
> weapons
> > of citizens? The example used here deals with 1,600 guns that the
> > owners originally failed to register by the deadline (I think the
> > Johnny-come-latelys did get screwed, but they could easily have
> > avoided the problem by complying with the law initially). But
> surely
> > the millions of registered weapons in this country have remained
> > legally secure in their owners' possession just as long as they
> were
> > legally registered. What recent history are you referring to
> > (admittedly, it's not something I follow very closely).
> >
> > >I do believe the Second Amendment contains the phrase "the right
> of
> > >the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed",
> according
> > >to the Thordike Barnhart Dictionary, an infringement is anything
> > >that hinders, violates, encroaches upon, or intrudes upon, in
> this
> > >case, the lawful ownership of firearms.
> >
> > And the courts, in light of the *entire* sentence (referencing
> > militias), have consistently ruled that the amendment in no way
> > suggests an inalienable personal right for a citizen to possess
> > whatever weaponry they wish without some legislative constraints.
> >
> > >That means that the government does not have the legitimate
> > >authority to, in any way, restrict the ownership of firearms to
> it's
> > >law abiding citizens.
> >
> > That's one interpretation. Just not the one that most courts have
