Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You

Religions > Atheism > Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 56 of 80

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"Gactimus"
Date:	20 Jan 2005 09:27:17 AM
Object:	Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You

It looks like Spike Lee was right. Mr. Michael "Bowling for Columbine"
Moore's bodyguards do carry guns,
"Filmmaker Michael Moore's bodyguard was arrested for carrying an unlicensed
weapon in New York's JFK airport Wednesday night."
Well, well, well, could a man who believes that you don't have the "right to
bear arms" actually have a gun packing bodyguard protecting him? I guess as
far as Moore is concerned, there's one standard for all of us peons and
another standard for VILs (very important liberals) like himself.
Sure, Moore may think that "ordinary people" -- like YOU -- can't be trusted
to have a gun to defend your families. It's just too risky. Oh, but if
Michael Moore might be in danger, well that's a different matter all
together; he's special, you see, the rules that he wants to apply to the
"little people" shouldn't apply to him.
What a hypocrite.
.

User: "Steve Krulick"
Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You	23 Jan 2005 02:25:13 PM

Bama Brian wrote:

David W. Barnes wrote:

In article <kL2dnRavUr7eQm7cRVn-tQ@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:

"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120050921363696%spam@aol.com...

In article <10v7mqqtm7ndn74@corp.supernews.com>, SaPeIsMa
<SaPeIsMa@hotmail.com> wrote:

"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:tku5v0lldoum8h1615dvdulifeujdrdhf2@4ax.com...

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 19:18:20 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:

On the contrary, removal of anything is a reduction of what's there. A
gun
complete is worth considerably more than a gun which is incomplete.

DO try to get your priorities straight. You right to own an automatic
weapon doesn't outweigh my right to not get shot.
--

Well until a bullet is fired in your direction, your right to "not be
shot"
is not even in question.

The United States Supreme Court says you don't have the right to own a
weapon.

CITE!

United States v. Miller 307 u.s. 174 (1939)

BZZZT! Wrong, but thanks for playing.

So you gainsay, but you don't show WHY!

Obviously you've never read the
case.

Guffaw!
Alas, you can "read" it all you want, but your past comments
prove you simply don't COMPREHEND what you read!

Where did they say that Miller's POSSESSION OR USE of HIS weapon
WAS protected? NOWHERE!
The SCotUS clearly said that since Miller and Layton's
possession or use of the weapon in question (NOT the TYPE of
weapon in the abstract!) had no "reasonable relationship to the
preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia," which
would be hard to have, as they were NOT in the NG at the time,
being professional bootleggers and all, THEY had no 2nd Amen
protection against being prosecuted under NFA34.
The only issue before the court was to address the direct appeal
of the US govt to the lower court's "duly interposed demurrer
[which] alleged: The National Firearms Act is not a revenue
measure but an attempt to usurp police power reserved for the
States [10th Amen], and is therefore unconstitutional. Also, it
offends the inhibition of the Second Amendment to the
Constitution."!!!
To that, they decisively concluded, based on a host of
precedents: "the objection that the Act usurps police power
reserved to the States is plainly untenable." So the argument
that the 10th Amen was violated was immediately rejected. THEN
they looked at the 2nd Amen and said: "With obvious purpose to
assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of
such forces [the well regulated militia referred to in the
previous sentences] the declaration and guarantee of the Second
Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with
that end in view."
After going through a LONG history of the militia, where they
described the nature OF the militia: "A body of citizens
enrolled for military discipline... acting in concert
for the common defense,"
they pointed out that there was no evidence that Miller's
possession or use of HIS weapon had "some reasonable
relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well
regulated militia" and thus had NOTHING to do with the purpose,
and thus the guarantee, of the 2nd Amen.
So, after then dispatching the irrelevance of state laws: "Most
if not all the States have adopted provisions touching the right
to keep and bear arms. Differences in the language employed in
these have naturally led to somewhat variant conclusions
concerning the scope of the right guaranteed. But none of them
seem to afford any material support for the challenged ruling of
the court below." they concluded, "We are unable to accept the
conclusion of the court below and the challenged judgement must
be reversed." And since the lower court said the NFA34 violated
the 2nd and 10th Amen, to NOT accept that conclusion and REVERSE
the judgment means the SCotUS RULED that the NFA34 WAS not in
violation of the Const! End of lower court's conclusion that the
NFA34 was unconstitutional!
"The District Court HELD that section eleven of the Act VIOLATED
the Second Amendment. It accordingly sustained the demurrer and
quashed the indictment... We are unable to accept the CONCLUSION
[what they HELD] of the court... and the challenged JUDGMENT
must be REVERSED."
Miller was small potatoes, a mere blip to the point of the case.
The govt's concern was the constitutionality of NFA34. The
SCotUS upheld the constitutionality of the law, and in passing,
reminded everyone what the courts had been routinely saying for
decades about the purpose and meaning of "the right to bear
arms," that it was all about the militia and the maintenance of
the militia.
Once the NFA34 was found constitutional, all weapons classes
described in it were confirmed as NOT having 2nd Amen
protection, whether they had military utility or not! Machine
guns have military utility, right? Anyone deny that? So, does
that mean that proof of their use in the military would have
made the NFA34 unconstitutional? Why didn't THAT come up?
Because CLASS of weapons wasn't the issue! What WAS the issue
was whether the NFA34 violated the 10th and 2nd Amens, and it
didn't violate the 2nd because "With obvious purpose to assure
the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such
forces [the well regulated militia referred to in the previous
sentences] the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment
were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in
view." Any possession or use that DIDN't "assure the
continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such
forces" was NOT protected. A bootlegger's shotgun (or pistol, or
knife, or truck --also "ordinary military equipment!) simply
didn't "contribute to the common defense" and thus didn't have
2nd Amen protection!
I ask you to consider the summary argument presented by the
solicitor general:
summary of argument
"The Second Amendment does not grant to the people the right to
keep and bear arms, but merely recognizes the prior existence of
that right and prohibits its infringement by Congress. It cannot
be doubted that the carrying of weapons without lawful occasion
or excuse was always a crime under the common law of England and
of this country. In both countries the right to keep and bear
arms has been generally restricted to the keeping and bearing of
arms by the people collectively for their common defense and
security. Indeed, the very language of the Second Amendment
discloses that this right has reference only to the keeping and
bearing of arms by the people as members of the state militia or
other similar military organization provided for by law. The
"arms" referred to in the Second Amendment are, moreover, those
which ordinarily are used for military or public defense
purposes, and the cases unanimously hold that weapons peculiarly
adaptable to use by criminals are not within the protection of
the Amendment. The firearms referred to in the National Firearms
Act, i.e., sawed-off shotguns, sawed-off rifles, and machine
guns, clearly have no legitimate use in the hands of private
individuals, but, on the contrary, frequently constitute the
arsenal of the gangster and the desperado. Section 11, upon
which the indictment was based, places restrictions upon the
transportation in interstate commerce of weapons of this
character only, and clearly, therefore, constitutes no
infringement of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms,"
as that term is used in the Second Amendment."
The SCotUS apparently agreed and reversed the lower court's
conclusion. Miller himself is not the issue.
Pretty simple and straightforward to anyone but a hoplophile in
denial. NOTHING about individuals "owning guns" for any purpose
independent of actual militia service.

Do you have another cite?

Sure, Blammy! ALL the Appellate rulings I've posted that confirm
that OUR view of Miller is correct and YOURS is silly nonsense!
HICKMAN v. BLOCK No. 94-55836. United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.
Decided April 5, 1996.
We follow our sister circuits in holding that the Second
Amendment is a RIGHT held by the states, and does not protect
the possession of a weapon by a private citizen.
Consulting the text and history of the amendment, the Court
found that the right to keep and bear arms is meant solely to
protect the RIGHT OF THE STATES to keep and maintain armed
militia.
Because the Second Amendment guarantees the RIGHT OF THE STATES
to maintain armed militia, the states alone stand in the
position to show legal injury when this right is infringed.
The Court's understanding follows a plain reading of the
Amendment's text. The Amendment's second clause declares that
the goal is to preserve the security of "a free state;" its
first clause establishes the premise that a "well-regulated
militia" is necessary to this end. Thus it is only in
furtherance of state security that "the right of the people
to keep and bear arms" is finally proclaimed.
UNITED STATES v. Francis J. WARIN.
No. 75-1734. United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Decided Feb. 4, 1976.
"Since the Second Amendment right "to keep and bear Arms"
applies only to the RIGHT OF THE STATE to maintain a militia and
not to the individual's right to bear arms, there can be no
serious claim to any express constitutional right of an
individual to possess a firearm...
"It would unduly extend this opinion to attempt to deal with
every argument made by defendant and amicus curiae, Second
Amendment Foundation, all of which are based on the erroneous
supposition that the Second Amendment is concerned with the
RIGHTS of individuals rather than THOSE OF THE STATES or that
defendant's automatic membership in the "sedentary militia" of
Ohio brings him within the reach of its guarantees."
UNITED STATES v. TOT.
No. 7961. Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Decided Oct. 28, 1942.
It is abundantly clear both from the discussions of this
amendment contemporaneous with its proposal and adoption and
those of learned writers since that this amendment, unlike
those providing for protection of free speech and freedom of
religion, was not adopted with individual rights in mind, but as
a protection for the STATES in the maintenance of their militia
organizations against possible encroachments by the federal
power.
LOVE v. PEPERSACK No. 94-1582. United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.
Decided Feb. 3, 1995.
Citing law review articles, Love argues that she has an
individual federal constitutional right to "keep and bear" a
handgun, and Maryland may not infringe upon this right. She is
wrong on both counts. The Second Amendment does not apply to the
states. Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 6 S.Ct. 580, 29 L.
Ed. 615 (1886); United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 23
L.Ed. 588 (p.124) (1876). Moreover, even as against federal
regulation, the amendment does not confer an absolute individual
right to bear any type of firearm. In 1939, the Supreme Court
held that the federal statute prohibiting possession of a
sawed-off shotgun was constitutional, because the defendant had
not shown that his possession of such a gun bore a "reasonable
relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well
regulated militia." United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178,
59 S.Ct. 816, 818, 83 L.Ed. 1206 (1939). Since then, the lower
federal courts have uniformly held that the Second Amendment
preserves a collective, rather than individual, right.
USA v BAER
U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals
235 F.3d 561, 564 (10th Cir. 2000)
http://laws.findlaw.com/10th/001102.html
Mr. Baer also makes the time-worn argument that his conviction
violates the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court has long held
that "the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear
a firearm that does not have `some reasonable relationship to
the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.'"
Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55, 65 n.8 (1980) (quoting
United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178 (1939)). The Court in
Lewis concluded that federal legislation regulating the receipt
and possession of firearms by felons "do[es] not trench upon any
constitutionally protected liberties," including those
guaranteed by the Second Amendment. Id. In light of this
authority, the circuits have consistently upheld the
constitutionality of federal weapons regulations like section
922(g) absent evidence that they in any way affect the
maintenance of a well regulated militia. See, e.g., Love v.
Pepersack, 47 F.3d 120, 124 (4th Cir. 1995); see also Wright,
117 F.3d at 1271-74 (upholding 18 U.S.C. � 922(o), which bars
possession of machine gun, against Second Amendment challenge);
United States v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016, 1018-1020 (same); United
States v. Nelson, 859 F.2d 1318, 1320 (8th Cir. 1988) (upholding
Switchblade Knife Act, 15 U.S.C. � 1242, against Second
Amendment challenge); United States v. Oakes, 564 F.2d 384, 387
(10th Cir. 1977) (upholding 26 U.S.C. � 5861(d), which bars
possession of unregistered machine gun, against Second Amendment
challenge). Mr. Baer's prosecution did not violate the Second
Amendment.
QUILICI v. VILLAGE OF MORTON GROVE
Nos. 82-1045, 82-1076 and 82-1132.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Decided Dec. 6, 1982. As Amended Dec. 10, 1982.
"Under the controlling authority of Miller we conclude that the
right to keep and bear handguns is not guaranteed by the second
amendment. Because the second amendment is not applicable to
Morton Grove and because possession of handguns by individuals
is not part of the right to keep and bear arms, Ordinance No.
81-11 does not violate the second amendment."
"We agree with the district court that the right to keep and
bear arms in Illinois is so limited by the police power that
a ban on handguns does not violate that right... the framers...
envisioned that local governments might exercise their police
power to restrict, or prohibit, the right to keep and bear
handguns."
"There is no right under the Illinois Constitution to possess a
handgun, nor does the state have an overriding state interest in
gun control which requires it to retain exclusive control in
order to prevent home rule units from adopting conflicting
enactments."
CASES v. UNITED STATES.
No. 3756. Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
Nov. 27, 1942.
The Federal Firearms Act undoubtedly curtails to some extent the
right of individuals to keep and bear arms but it does not
follow from this as a necessary consequence that it is bad under
the Second Amendment which reads "A well regulated Militia,
being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of
the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The right to keep and bear arms is not a right conferred upon
the people by the federal constitution.
Whatever rights in this respect the people may have depend upon
local legislation; the only function of the Second Amendment
being to prevent the federal government and the federal
government only from infringing that right... the limitation
imposed upon the federal government by the Second Amendment was
not absolute and this dictum received the sanction of the court
in the recent case of United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174,
182, 59 S.Ct. 816, 83 L.Ed. 1206.
But you just keep Blamming on Blammy!
YOUR silly opinion is valid, but ALL the Appellate Circuits are
wrong! LOL!

--
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian

;-PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPp
.

User: "David W. Barnes"
Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You	23 Jan 2005 01:30:12 PM

In article <GSSId.4964$cZ1.4565@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>, Bama
Brian <bamaNOTbrian@mindspring.com> wrote: