From: [c--am--r] at [optilink.COM] (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Date: 16 Jul 93 18:44:17 GMT
In article <224qir$[i 08] at [aludra.usc.edu]>, [n--bu--y] at [aludra.usc.edu] (Keith Newburry) writes:
> In article <[philCA 8 Awr C 9 H] at [netcom.com]> [p--l] at [netcom.com] (Phil Ronzone) writes:
> >The 2nd amendment was clearly and unmistakably pur thier for one reason --
> >the creators of the Bill Of Rights knew that all governments have a strong
> >danger of becoming tyrannical -- and that armed people are the best defense.
>
> Oh how I love the "orininalists". The original intent argument fails
> because no "intent" can be specifically attributable to a group of
> people. Different representatives had different interpretations and
> reasons for the second amendment. An equally plausible explanation is
> that someone wanted to preserve the "citizen army" which at that point
> was the only means of defense of the union. IN any case, original
1. False. A standing army was specifically authorized by the
Constitution.
2. Please provide any quote that backs up your interpretation from
a member of the First Congress, from any of the state ratifying
conventions, from the requests for a Bill of Rights. ANY. The
Senate debated adding the phrase "for the common defense" to the
Second Amendment -- the attempt failed. [Charlene Bangs Bickford
& Helen E. Veit, ed., Documentary History of the First Federal
Congress 1789-91, (Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press: 1986),
4:36-37]
On the other hand, we have the requests for the Second Amendment,
and they are remarkably clear about the individual nature of the
right to be protected:
Virginia:
7. That the people have a right to bear arms for the
defence of themselves and their own state, or the
United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and
no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any
of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of
public injury from individuals; and as standing armies
in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they
ought not to be kept up; and that the military shall be
kept under strict subordination to and be governed by
the civil powers.20
20 "The Address and Reasons of Dissent of the Minority of
the Convention of the State of Pennsylvania to their
Constitutents", in Kaminski & Saladino, 3:19.
New Hampshire's request:
Congress shall never disarm any Citizen unless such as
are or have been in Actual Rebellion.37
37 Bickford & Veit, 4:14-15.
From Virginia's ratification:
Seventeenth, That the people have a right to keep and
bear arms; that a well regulated Militia composed of
the body of the people trained to arms in the proper,
natural and safe defence of a free State. That
standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to
liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as
the circumstances and protection of the Community will
admit; and that in all cases the military shall be
under strict subordination to and governed by the Civil
power.58
58 Bickford & Veit, 4:17.
Note that a clear distinistion is made between "the people" and
"well regulated Militia."
From New York's request:
That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms;
that a well regulated Militia, including the body of
the People capable of bearing Arms, is the proper,
natural and safe defence of a free State;61
61 Bickford & Veit, 4:20.
Rhode Island's request makes clear that the rights to be protected
were INDIVIDUAL rights:
I. That there are certain natural rights of which men,
when they form a social compact, cannot deprive or
divest their posterity, j among which are the enjoyment
of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring,
possessing, and protecting of property, and pursuing
and obtaining happiness and safety.77
77 Jonathan Elliot, The Debates of the Several State
Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution,
(New York, Burt Franklin: 1888), 1:334.
and:
XVII. That the people have a right to keep and bear
arms; that a .i.well-regulated; militia, including the
body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the
proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that
the militia shall not be subject to martial law, except
in time of war, rebellion, or insurrection; that
standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to
liberty, and ought not to be kept up, except in cases
of necessity; and that, at all times, the military
shall be under strict subordination to the civil power;
that, in time of peace, no soldier ought to be
quartered in any house without the consent of the
owner, and in time of war only by the civil
magistrates, in such manner as the law directs.78
78 Elliot, 1:335.
> intent is NOT a trump card in interpreting the constitution. The
> supreme court can also consider the social and policy issues surrounding
> a decision and go from there. I'm not saying I expect a decision on
> the 2A anytime soon, so cool your flames, o' supporter of rapid fire.
>
> KN
You mean, the courts can decide whatever they want, regardless of
what the Constitution says, or what was intended, if they think it's
a good idea. Let's hope that concentration camps don't ever seem
like a "good idea."
--
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer My opinions, all mine!
The California Bar Association wants lawyers added to the list of groups
given special protection by "hate crime" laws. Did I miss something? Since
when have $75/hour lawyers become oppressed minorities?