Rich Travsky wrote:

Magus wrote:

Rich Travsky wrote:

Scout wrote:

"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message

Scout wrote:

"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message

"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:

Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in

"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:

Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in

Bob wrote:

"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message

Bob wrote:

"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message

Bob wrote:

"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
message

Actually we do. Further the right is that of the
people,

and

we

still
have a
lot of those.

What militia are you in ->

The Second Amendment contains no
such requirement.

"A well regulated militia" ...

Out of context.

That IS the context.

Incorrect.

Then why are the words there?

Well?

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary
to the security of a free State, the right of the
people to keep and read books, shall not be
infringed."

Does this mean the right to read books
only applies to the "well-schooled electorate"?

Apples. Oranges.

The structures are identical. Now, answer the
question.

They're not identical in *meaning*.

Of course not, one discusses guns the other, books.

But they are identical in parsing to determine that meaning.

You are falling back on structure in order to avoid answering
why the words "well regulated militia" are in the amendment.

Reading had nothing to do the security of the state.

Obviously, you missed the reason for parsing sentences when you went
to
school. You should try remedial English.

Obviously, you lacked a dictionary for word meanings when learning
English. You
should
try remedial English.

Except he has shown he understand the meaning of the words, where as you
have yet to establish you understand sentence parsing.

I understand both *together* - which explains your problems...

On the contrary, it would appear you understand neither.

I'm not the one who thinks the presense of the word "militia" is not
significant...

RT

Significant is not equal to restrictive.

But it can be, and in this case, it is. In fact, you agree it is too when you say

OK, the militia is a subset of the people.

Only in your mind is that an agreement on my part. Admitting that a

house is made of blocks in no way detracts from the fact that it's a
house and not just a pile of blocks. Admitting that the militia is drawn
from the people in no way limits "the right of the people".

"The right [to bear arms] is general. It may be supposed from the
phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was
only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not
warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been explained elsewhere,
consists of those persons who, under the laws, are liable to the
performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service
when called upon.... [I]f the right were limited to those enrolled, the
purpose of the guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or
the neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The
meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the
militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and
they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this
enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear
arms implies something more than mere keeping; it implies the learning
to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for
their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for
voluntary discipline in arms, observing in so doing the laws of public
order." - Thomas M. Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law,
Third Edition [1898]

RD (The Sandman) (spamlock) wrote:

"oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com" <oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote in
news:1167844028.239710.8910@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com:

RD (The Sandman) (spamlock) wrote:

"oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com" <oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote in
news:1167837175.537798.197100@n51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:

[snip]

Now, if you have separated the RKBA from the militia, by what
basis would a court decide that the right has been infringed?

The Second Amendment rules that the right to keep and bear arms
shall not be infringed by the federal government. Most of the
other amendments have been adjudicated as to apply to the states
via the Fourteenth Amendment but the Second has not.

And the reason why should be instructive, but I digress.

The Court has not had a case where that was a subject. Miller was
based on federal laws, not state.

This is true, but there people who hold a different opinion on the
2nd
than you point out that the 2nd can't restrict the state because it is
a
state power already.

[snip]

Some do and include nukes, etc. I don't. I see it as rifles,
shotguns and handguns, including full auto variants of those.

What is the basis for discrimination between forms and types?

Not sure what you are asking. Are you asking why I, personally,
don't include them?

I'm asking how a judge would determine, and upon what grounds,
a weapon was covered by RKBA or not. Nature of the weapon, nature
of the use, safety, effectivity, popularity, history?

Does the feds and state have no interest, under the commerce
clause, in regulating what arms can be owned or manufactured?

The Commerce Clause is one of the most abused clauses in the
Constitution. Congress had free rein using it until US v Lopez.

Unfortunately, you ignore the quesiton in the answer. Within
the current scope of the commerce clause, what limits are upon
the feds with respect to the sale and manufacture of weapons?

The feds monitor all manufacture of firearms in this country. They
license all the manufacturers, distributors and dealers. They do not
have any power over private sales unless that sale crosses state
lines.

The commerce clause already gives them the authority over sales
within a state which may influence interstate sales.

How they can be stored or used?

Sorry, but the federal government has no real authority for
regulation of private property that does not cross a state line.

Tell the farmers that.

Tell me what product they produce that does not cross a state line.
The government cannot tell a farmer how much land he must or cannot
own. It does not tell him what crops he must raise. It does not
tell them how many tractors they can own or how to line them up on
his property.

It can tell him what crops he can, or cannot, produce, regardless of
where he sells them.

Tell the moonshiners that one too.

That's a tax revenue problem.

No. You cannot produce any distilled spirits without a license,
even for private consumption.

If I have access to US
made weapons of a particular size or configuration, can
they prevent the importation of such sizes and configurations
from foreign countries?

Import regulation and tariffs are a different argument since they
involve a lot more than firearms.

But they do involve firearms.

Some do, yes.

So are there limits upon the feds power to regulate gun sales
from
foreign countries and what are they?

[snip]

I don't wish for laws on firearms to be at the level they are now.

That's obvious. The question is if you treat gun laws much
as we treat restrictions on ink, or medicine, or paper production,
or any industry in which OSHA gets involved, what limits are
upon the federal government?

The firearms industry is already one of the most monitored and
regulated industries in the country, assuming that the ATF does the
job they are chartered for. They are simply not covered under the
Consumer Product Safety Council.

Actually, there are vastly more monitored industries in the
country,
just ask the airlines. Quite honestly, considering the hazardous
nature of firearms, they are grossly under regulated and monitored
by comparison. Tobacco is probably the only one that beats it.

But that is to the point. If one tries to connect the RKBA to
militias, it can be a limiting feature,

and can involve the state in
the question. It has to be a stand alone right, associated with
self defense and defense of liberty. And within that declaration,
it has to be strong in the extent that it must be focused on
individuals and their need for effective self defense. The state
must show a compelling reason for limiting access to weapons.

Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in

Scout wrote:

"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message

"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:

Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in

"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:

Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in

"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:

Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in

Bob wrote:

"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
message

Bob wrote:

"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
message

Bob wrote:

"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
message

Actually we do. Further the right is that of the
people,

and

we

still
have a
lot of those.

What militia are you in ->

The Second Amendment contains no
such requirement.

"A well regulated militia" ...

Out of context.

That IS the context.

Incorrect.

Then why are the words there?

Well?

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary
to the security of a free State, the right of the
people to keep and read books, shall not be
infringed."

Does this mean the right to read books
only applies to the "well-schooled electorate"?

Apples. Oranges.

The structures are identical. Now, answer the
question.

They're not identical in *meaning*.

Of course not, one discusses guns the other, books.

But they are identical in parsing to determine that meaning.

You are falling back on structure in order to avoid answering
why the words "well regulated militia" are in the amendment.

Reading had nothing to do the security of the state.

Obviously, you missed the reason for parsing sentences when you
went to school. You should try remedial English.

Obviously, you lacked a dictionary for word meanings when
learning English. You should
try remedial English.

Not at all. I understand what it says.

Now put them together...

and the people still have a right to keep and bear arms whether they
are in the militia or not, or even if a militia exists or not.

Only a subset of the people and in the context of a militia.

Sorry, but RKBA and the militia are two separate entities. You are
talking about the 2A protection to that right, not the right itself.