Still Hating America.

[SlaveNoMore]

LessinSF
Speaking of artifacts, "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law." But, it has been interpreted once ... Engblom v. Carey, 677 F.2d 957.

If it was her




would you care much?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
This may have escaped you, but the national guard is quite different from the militias (then or -- as defined by statute -- now).

Yes and no. The National Guard's duties may have expanded, and the federal government may have a closer relationship than in colonial times, but they are still meant to serve their original task of serving as a defensive force for the several states.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
We don't? This will come as news the national guardsmen serving in Iraq.

If they are the militia, why can't we limit gun ownership to them?

OK, I had to ask. You don't have to answer.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Yes and no. The National Guard's duties may have expanded, and the federal government may have a closer relationship than in colonial times, but they are still meant to serve their original task of serving as a defensive force for the several states.

Yes, but they're fundamentally different, in that it no longer makes sense to require (or permit) people to keep arms so that they can muster out to join the militia in times of emergency.

I think all of this business about individual vs. group rights w/r/t to the Second Amendment misses the point -- it presumes too much about the framers. They provided for an individual right to bear arms for militia service, not thinking that technological development would lead to an entirely different military. They were writing before the internal combustion engine. The army was, essentially, men and horses.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by LessinSF
Say what? There is apparently a disconnect between what I said or even implied (nothing really, except noting that the Ninth Amendment is ignored and Third is an artifact) and the conclusions you have drawn about my meaning.

That said, like Justice Black, I do not see anything in the First that allows for time, place and manner restrictions. It seems pretty absolute to me. If you want them, amend it. As for the Third, it is a historical artifact that would not even be contemplated for discussion if the Bill of Rights were being written today. Instead, we would be tediously debating whether discrimation against fats should be expressly prohibited and animal rights.

If you want to have some fun with a dim litigator, raise the issue of Third Amendment Claims during a conference call. A buddy of mine did it to me a few weeks ago and had me confused as shit for about half an hour (its hard to find a concise definition on Google that explains that there are no contemporary claims of any sort deriving from that artifact). I'll add the caveat that I never attended Constitutional Law class in law school because I had a day job at the same time as the class, so YMMV with this little trick.

ETA: He and I were not on a conf call. He was Blackberrying me from a meeting. I was probably surfing porn.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Yes, but they're fundamentally different, in that it no longer makes sense to require (or permit) people to keep arms so that they can muster out to join the militia in times of emergency.

I think all of this business about individual vs. group rights w/r/t to the Second Amendment misses the point -- it presumes too much about the framers. They provided for an individual right to bear arms for militia service, not thinking that technological development would lead to an entirely different military. They were writing before the internal combustion engine. The army was, essentially, men and horses.

I like handguns. I've fired handguns and found them to be a lot of fun. Still, I see no use for them for about 90% of the population. And I'd never own one. I am no NRA nut.

That said, the idea the govt, which already intrudes in our lives to a degree never intended by the framers, may intrude more and more while simultaneously forcing us to give up weapons presumes an ever benevolent govt. While even a hardened hater of govt like myself thinks the govt is generally benevolent, and though I don't think we're moving toward a full-on Big Brother state of any sort, I'm still uneasy with the idea of any controlling entity curtailing my access to an instrument of self-defense thats been commonly used by half the country for the last 200 years. I think on a level we don't admit exists, the populous's easy access guns act as a last line deterrent against complete control by the govt, were the govt ever to shift into such a dictatorial mode.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Give it up, Hoss.

Of the 4 federalist/libertarians on the Board, Sebby's become an anarchist, you've become a libertine, I've become a fascist, and Club's become a.... where the F is Club anyway?

eta: Okay, 5. Spanky's become a farmer.

I wan-na be in an anarchy... but I just don't have the jam.*

I'm an annoyed moderate unable to reconcile that politics and governance will never be rational exercises, and that reasoned compromise is radioactive to both proceses. The futility, stupidity and craven self-interest of it will always drive me to rants.

*Ok, Tax... nail those two records. Released within 20 months of each other. The first is easy. Good luck on the second.

[Tables R Us]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I wan-na be in an anarchy... but I just don't have the jam.*

...

*Ok, Tax... nail those two records. Released within 20 months of each other. The first is easy. Good luck on the second.

Zep IV beats the pistols and the stones. You bolluxed the quote from "some girls"; it is "I just dont have that much jam"

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
This may have escaped you, but the national guard is quite different from the militias (then or -- as defined by statute -- now).

Remind me how a statute is relevant to determining the meaning of the Constitution?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Give it up, Hoss.

Of the 4 federalist/libertarians on the Board, Sebby's become an anarchist, you've become a libertine, I've become a fascist, and Club's become a.... where the F is Club anyway?

eta: Okay, 5. Spanky's become a farmer.

Ahem.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Adder
Somewhere in the definition of "abridging."

In response to both you and Ty - under that logic, courts should be able to read/interpret what a militia is.

As written, I don't believe the first amendment permits time, place and manner restrictions. I also think those restricitons are rational, as are certain restrictions or regulation of gun ownership.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
where the F is Club anyway?

Been swamped. PM me and I'll give you an update.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I like handguns. I've fired handguns and found them to be a lot of fun. Still, I see no use for them for about 90% of the population. And I'd never own one. I am no NRA nut.

That said, the idea the govt, which already intrudes in our lives to a degree never intended by the framers, may intrude more and more while simultaneously forcing us to give up weapons presumes an ever benevolent govt. While even a hardened hater of govt like myself thinks the govt is generally benevolent, and though I don't think we're moving toward a full-on Big Brother state of any sort, I'm still uneasy with the idea of any controlling entity curtailing my access to an instrument of self-defense thats been commonly used by half the country for the last 200 years. I think on a level we don't admit exists, the populous's easy access guns act as a last line deterrent against complete control by the govt, were the govt ever to shift into such a dictatorial mode.

2

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I like handguns. I've fired handguns and found them to be a lot of fun. Still, I see no use for them for about 90% of the population. And I'd never own one. I am no NRA nut.

I agree with you on all of this. Shooting is fun. Hunting is fun. I've had a job where I carried a gun.

That said, the idea the govt, which already intrudes in our lives to a degree never intended by the framers, may intrude more and more while simultaneously forcing us to give up weapons presumes an ever benevolent govt. While even a hardened hater of govt like myself thinks the govt is generally benevolent, and though I don't think we're moving toward a full-on Big Brother state of any sort, I'm still uneasy with the idea of any controlling entity curtailing my access to an instrument of self-defense thats been commonly used by half the country for the last 200 years. I think on a level we don't admit exists, the populous's easy access guns act as a last line deterrent against complete control by the govt, were the govt ever to shift into such a dictatorial mode.

I don't think it's much of a deterrent. It didn't help Germany's Communists when the Nazis took over.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Remind me how a statute is relevant to determining the meaning of the Constitution?

Stick with the "then" part of my parenthetical, then.