<DIV>Last post on this issue. Look, I'm just a lawyer. Millions of people, 2A fans, gun nuts, political scientists, and law professors all have interesting ideas about what the law ought to be, but at least outside the 5th Cir., whatever ambiguities clever minds might, if paid or inspired. generate in this tolerably clear text have been settled for now by the case law. And I am not so sure that the law is actually differrent in the 5th Cir. And that case law says: there is no constitutionally protected individual right to bear arms. It's not even really a question from a lawyer's point of view. It's obvious. It could change, but right now, it's clear.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I am not being idiosyncratic or political -- politically I am willing to horse trade with the gun nuts if they will give me stuff I want. I'd be willing to accept a nation that had a right to pack iron if the NRA would accept a nation with universal national health insurance. For example. But as to law rather than policy, this is how lawyers think. Judges too. Sorry we're not up on the latest in deconstruction. 99 out of 100 lawyers, maybe 999 out of 1000, will tell you the same thing. We're just craftspeople who have to use these tools to help our clients. Or to decide cases, if we're judges. There's ambiguity enough in the law without manifacturing it where it isn't there, legally speaking.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Statutory provisions -- yes, the proviison you cited is part of the law, and yes, I was wrong, it does say "unorganized",  but that doesn't mean it illuminates or constrains the Constitution. And I don't see why you think it shows that the 2A is ambigious in a way that might be construed to support an individual right to bear arms that no one has a clue what the term "unorganized militia" means in a statute. And state laws or constitutions don't count either; the Constitution is supreme over enactments of Congress and state legislatures. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>But this is getting repetitive, so you all just shake your heads at how obtuse we are, OK? Give us a call if you need a lawsuit filed or someone files one against you, though. Pro se litigants, especially the gun nuts, get sanctioned for frivoulous lawsuits, at least outside Texas. That's because courts regard the law as settled and obvious. From a legal point of view, it is.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>jks Jordan Hayes <jmhayes@j-o-r-d-a-n.com> wrote:</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">> I have no idea what the militia that is not part of > the National Guard is. Like you said, you gotta just read the text. > Btw, the provision doesn't say "unorganized." Well uh, yes it does. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html Sec. 311. - Militia: composition and classes (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are - (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia Interestingly, the VPOTUS is not in the militia (see the next section, 312 for details of who else is exempt)! And Doug says he's shocked to learn that he's part of the militia [sorry Liza!] (wait, are you under 45?), but: http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/1999/1999-November/019848.html > Whatever it means, it can't possibly mean that a citizen who isn't > part of some well-regulated organization necessary to the security > of the state has a right to bear arms. Why not? I'd say that Title 10, Chapter 13, Section 311 (b)(2) pretty well regulates the organization of us unorganized citizens. Wasn't that what was missing? Some definition of "well-regulated" ...? > The 2A fans want to have an individual right to bear arms, not > as part of a group, independently of regulation, and having > nothing to do with the security of a free state. I'm not sure that's a fair characterization of "2A fans" -- I'm sure some think that's true, but it's too broad for my tastes. Hardly anyone reasonable says it can't be regulated -- afterall, 1A is regulated -- but I think the "fans" would prefer not quite so much regulation. Getting back to the original thread, it's possible that things like "concealed carry" vis the 2nd could be likened to "hate speech" in the 1st. Or maybe even possession by felons: afterall, in most states when a felon finishes his sentence, he gets a lot of his rights back; why not the 2nd? He gets his right to hate speech back. A real issue is that, for all the hub-bub, I don't think there are that many laws out there that I think qualify as good tests for constitutionality: many of the "gun control" laws on the books are just increases in the size of prohibited classes or have particular items (such as was used in the Miller test, like "assault weapons" [sic]) to prohibit. Maybe DC (though that right there makes it tricky) or NYC's outright gun prohibition. That's why I liked the Emerson case: on the face of it, it seems "wrong" that someone can lose something from the BOR without having done something even remotely criminal. "You're getting divorced: Soldiers can be quartered in your house." > Even if it's a Bad Thing, it's the law. Is Title 10 the law? > right now, the 2A means, no individual right to bear arms That seems silly in the "shall issue" states who quote 2A in their own constitutions. /jordan ___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk </BLOCKQUOTE> <hr size=1>Do you Yahoo!? <a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/100/*http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail/static/efficiency.html">New and Improved Yahoo! Mail</a> - 100MB free storage!