Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
From: carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Personal defense
Message-ID: <445@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 2-May-85 20:00:45 EDT
Article-I.D.: gargoyle.445
Posted: Thu May  2 20:00:45 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 3-May-85 23:36:45 EDT
Organization: U. Chicago - Computer Science
Lines: 56

Some thoughts on the Second Amendment from another of the net's great
constitutional scholars, Phil Lavette:

>2.  Isn't this another flagrant case of the court dictating legislation via
>    judicial interpretation rather than allowing people to exercise their
>    freedom to vote?  

How is it "dictating legislation" for a court to uphold as
constitutional a law passed by an elected body and signed into law by
an elected official?  You tell me.  

>    Doesn't the Supreme Court regularly change its opinions
>    to fit the political fads currently in vogue?

No.  Why should it?  The justices are appointed for life.  That's
*why* the justices are appointed for life.  But if the political
beliefs of the justices reflect those of the president who appointed
them, and the political beliefs of the president reflect those of the
people who elected him, then a secular change in the views of the
country as a whole will be reflected to some degree in changing
interpretations of the Constitution by the SC.  On the other hand,
there could hardly be a clearer example of distorting the meaning of
the Constitution to fit an ideology than the way the NRA has
inscribed a carefully edited version of the 2nd Amendment on its
national headquarters, as if the amendment had anything to do with
the purposes of the NRA.  

>3.  To what excesses does the government intend to go which causes it to con-
>    clude that it must first dis-arm the decent law-abiding citizens?

Before becoming a regular reader of Usenet I wouldn't have believed
that an educated person could be stupid enough to think that "the
government" is plotting to commit excesses for which it must first
disarm the populace.  The government, not being a person, cannot have
intentions, a faculty peculiar to persons, so I do not understand the
meaning of the term "government" in the question quoted above.  The
ability to think is also restricted to persons, so the government
cannot conclude that it must disarm the populace.  The people who
concluded that some form of gun control is desirable are the elected
members of some legislative bodies, some elected chief executives,
and many of their constituents.  In fact the desire for various forms
of gun control is probably stronger among constituents than among
legislators, to judge by the intensity of NRA lobbying.  So Lavette
concludes that "the government" is trying to disarm the citizenry.

>5.  How do dictionaries written in that period define "militia"?

Samuel Johnson's dictionary defines "militia" as "the trainbands; the
standing force of a nation."  He defines "trainbands" as "the
militia; the part of a community trained for martial exercise."  But
the interpretation of the Constitution cannot be settled merely by
reference to a dictionary, whether of the 18th or 20th century.  BTW,
the "militia" is also mentioned in Art. I Sect. 8 of the
Constitution.  

Richard Carnes