ERROR: Account closed.

[James L Westrich II]

>> the authors of the 2nd Amendment surely meant to encourage some rule from
>> below against the vast centralization of authority in the hands of the
>> propertied classes that the Constitution of 1787 represented.  As we try
>> to fulfill the original intent of the 2nd Amendment, we should think about
>> it analogously to the rest of the Bill of Rights.  Just as we want to
>> extend the principles of the 1st Amendment (e.g.) in ways that would have
>> been literally unthinkable to its authors (such as internet freedom), so
>> we should try to do the same thing with the 2nd -- e.g., by instituting
>> effective local democratic control of the groups authorized to carry arms
>> (which would begin with but by no means be limited to "civilian" review of
>> the police).  The 2nd Amendment could be construed as a legal weapon
>> against the FBI, the INS (which has more armed agents than the FBI), or
>> your "professionalized" local police.
>> 	--C. G. Estabrook


>I've resisted weighing in on this thread (no doubt, there are listers 
>who would prefer I not do so now) because of past experience discussing 
>the issue...for what little it's worth, I neither like guns nor wish to 
>live in society where only cops have them...


>was Amendment #2 intended to prevent Congress from disarming state 
>militias, not prevent it from regulating private ownership of firearms 
>or was it designed to prevent national gov't from disarming individual 
>citizens (who at the time made up the militia)?...when ratifying the
>constitution in 1787/88, some state conventions included amendment
>proposals, New Hamphsire asserting that 'Congress shall never disarm
>any citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion'
>(on the other hand, Massachusetts rejected Sam Adams proposal
>guaranteeing 'peaceable citizens' the right of 'keeping their own
>arms)...in Virginia, Patrick Henry and George Mason argued that federal 
>control of the militias would destroy them rather than (as might be 
>expected from the two) the need to insure that people would be armed 
>against gov't tyranny...


>Madison's proposed amendment in the first Congress said:
>'The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed;
>a well regulated militia armed but well being the best security of a
>free country.'  


>moreover, M's proposal went on to say:
>'But no person religiously surupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled
>to render military service in person.'


>the House of Rep's passed M's proposal...the Senate, however altered the
> wording a but, flip-flopped order, and took out the part about military 
>service...what it passed became #2...


>US Supreme Court has only ruled in cases involving #2 a few times and its 
>most extensive statement on the matter was in *US v Miller* (1939):
>'The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set
>in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the
>consent of Congress.  The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored
>standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country
>and laws could be secured through the Militia - civilians primarily,
>soldiers on occasion.'


>*Miller* has court interpreting and applying #2 with view to maintaining 
>militia...amendment was pretty much ignored by constitutional scholars
>until recently when some began to make the individualist argument...
>see Sanford Levinson (a critical legal studies guy or was) 'The 
>Embarrassing Second Amendment,' Yale Law Journal, December 1989 for most 
>often cited article from this perspective...


>have gone on long enough here so I'll finish by pointing out that Supreme 
>Court has not 'incorporated' #2 so it only applies to national gov't...it 
>doesn't limit power of state & local gov'ts to regulate firearms...
>Michael Hoover