Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site crystal.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!uwvax!crystal!shp
From: shp@crystal.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Personal Defense
Message-ID: <453@crystal.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 30-Apr-85 14:44:21 EDT
Article-I.D.: crystal.453
Posted: Tue Apr 30 14:44:21 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 2-May-85 04:45:33 EDT
References: <384@ttidcc.UUCP>
Organization: The Life Is A Rock Foundation
Lines: 49

[Edited for re-transmission]

> >Gun control is NOT unconstitutional.  It never has been.  FIVE SEPARATE
> >times the U.  S.  Supreme Court has ruled that the 2nd amendment applies
> >only to civilian militias.  This interpretation is backed both by English
> >common law, and the concerns of the founding fathers.
> >
> 
> According to the writings of the "founding fathers" approximately contem-
> porary to the period, militia meant an armed populice, as in citizenry,
> as in real people in their little houses, not established governmentally
> organized bodies of armed personnel.
> 
> Limits placed on the private ownership of guns is incompatible with the
> direct "concerns of the founding fathers".  Whether this is unconstitutional
> in ANY interpretation (or sophistic misinterpretation) causes the courts
> much wrangle.  But it certainly isn't INCORRECT to state that it is
> UNCONSTITUTIONAL in that it is opposed to the original intent of the
> writers of the constitution.
> 

	I'm probably 'way off base here, BUT.... if memory serves (I only
    carry crayons with me, not books) the wording is: "A well-regulated
    militia being necessary to the....".  Well-regulated.
	Opinion:  The NRA isn't well-regulated.  Powerful, influential,
	etc., but not well-regulated.  The National Guard is (supposed to
	be, anyway; I'm NOT commenting from personal experience).
	A lawyer told me that appellate and supreme courts DO take into
    account the intent of the authors when deciding cases.  He wasn't a
    constitutional specialist, so this may not be the case.  Makes sense
    to me, though.  Anyway, it's the intent when writing that matters,
    NOT THE SURROUNDING ENVIRONMENT.   My belief is that the author(s)
    of the Bill of Rights intended that there should always be some
    form of civil defense ("well-regulated militia"), not necessarily 
    that the current band of gun-toting agrarians [:-)] qualified.
	Constitutionality is decided in the courts, not in the nets(oooohh,
    I can't believe I said that!  My apologies to Arthur Ashe).
>
> I see I'm just going to have to dig up the citations on this, lost in old
> filing boxes tho they may be.  Expect it after finals, folks.
> 
> 				  Adrienne Regard

	PLEASE do.  If you don't want to post them, mail me.  I DO want to
    see.

	=shp

    P. S.  I'll see you in net.flame.