[TheForge] Criminal Background Check: way OT: Corrected

[Grant Marcoux]

Lads & Lasses:  Peter is correct on Miller v. US....the court disagreed with
appellant's 2nd Amendment claim on the grounds that there was no connection
between short-barreled shotguns and a "well-regulated militia"  However, the
court blithely ignored the use of short-barreled shotguns in WW1 by US
troops.  Interestingly, in the Miller case, neither side stood before the
court to make oral arguments.

The individual rights vs. collective rights arguments are a recent trend, as
Miller dealt with the aspects of a particular weapon in militia service, vs.
a collective vs. individual rights argument.

In Heller vs. DC, sadly, a bare majority found the 2nd Amendment to uphold
an individual right.  In the dissenting opinion, Justice Stevens commented
that even an individual right is a collective one, under certain
circumstances.  Wow...kinda sounds like Orwellian double-speak to me.

Stay tuned

Grant

-----Original Message-----
From: theforge-bounces at mailman.qth.net
[mailto:theforge-bounces at mailman.qth.net]On Behalf Of Peter Hirst
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2009 2:39 PM
To: adveniam at att.net; Blacksmithing List Sponsored by ABANA
Subject: Re: [TheForge] Criminal Background Check: way OT: Corrected


OK:  I can't stand it any more.  have to chime in with my 2 cents.  Miller
did NOT say any militia weapon was ok for the private citizen to possess.
It said that one particular weapon -- a sawed off shotgun --  could NOT even
arguably be protected because it is not a militia weapon.  If you don't
believe me, try mounting a .50 or a Mark-19 on your jeep next time you go to
the park and see how far the 2d amendment argument gets you.

 Second, the SC has NOT said repeatedly that the 2d is a personal right:
they have said it only once but quite definitively, last year in DC v
Heller.

SCOTUS also did NOT accept the broad, organic view of what constitutes the
militia as its justification for the individual right:  in fact they
rejected any connection whatever between the milita and the right to keep
and bear arms, choosing instead to treat the first clause as pure precatory
language.  The only such language in the entire constitution, BTW. You can
thank the NRA for that.   Conservatives should not take much heart in this.
By reducing the that  first clause mere surplusage, Scalia reduced the scope
of the amendment to personal protection in the home, stripping it of any
meaning whatsoever with repect to securing the community or the state
against tyranny.  If you think this was a great conservative victory, you
just watch what happens next time the Fibbies and BATF have some holdout
faction of  Posse  Comitatus cornered on a remote ridge in Idaho or a
barracks in Waco.  Go ahead, shoot a burglar in Anacostia, if you think
that's the grand concept  the framers of the federal government had in mind.
Scalia has much bigger ideas than that.  He and his buddies couldn't wait to
get rid of the Militia clause.  Neo conservatism is NOT about States rights.
Its about preserving the illusion of individual rights while making sure
that the substance of those rights is completely manageable by the Federal
government and that the federal government is manageable by certain
interests.   Sure DC now has to let you keep a 9 in your home, locked and
loaded.  Big deal.  (Notice BTW that this case is not about the right to
bear arms -- only to keep them:  that boot has yet to drop.  You want to be
the one to sue for the right to carry on K Street?).   If the Feds -- or the
cops for that matter -- want to clean out an armory in Concord, however,
they won't have to pry that AR 15 out of your cold dead hands:  they'll just
crush you under an Abrams.


----- Original Message -----
From: "GRAF" <adveniam at att.net>
To: "Blacksmithing List Sponsored by ABANA" <theforge at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2009 3:33 PM
Subject: Re: [TheForge] Criminal Background Check: way OT


> You might think that way. I might think that way, betcha even Andy V.
> thinks that way.
> Most of the  gang bangers around here 1. Do not believe they will get
> caught .2. If they do they will get nothing  significant as a
> punishment. 3. If they do get a year or two they will be super cool
> amongst their friends.
> They are correct on all counts.
>
> Mike Graf
>
>
>
> Andy Gladish wrote:
>>  What is it that he
>> thinks he needs so badly that he's willing to hurt others and risk his
>> own
>> safety and liberty?
>> Andy
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 16:28:58 -0800, Bruce Freeman <freemab222 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
> ______________________________________________________________
> TheForge mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/theforge
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:TheForge at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>

______________________________________________________________
TheForge mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/theforge
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:TheForge at mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html