Hi,
Most definitely. "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." Is the Militia the reason or a reason for the people to have the right to bear arms? Had the writers left off the first 13 words, the meaning would be clear. As it is, it is ambiguous.
I believe, from the historical evidence and from similar statements in many of the state constitutions, that the purpose was to allow the citizenry to be armed. If that belief is correct, then all the restrictions on weapons are unconstitutional, including registrations, waiting periods, etc. After all, it does not say, " . . . shall not be banned." It says, " . . . shall not be infringed." a somewhat stronger statement.
It is poorly written, not just because it is ambivalent, but because it is (I think) too general. "Arms". Not "firearms", not "guns and pistols and knives and hatchets", not "personal arms" but "Arms". Even at the time it was written, Arms referred to cannon, mortars, rockets, in addition to individual arms. Nowadays it covers a lot more.
So far, the Supremes have dodged the issue of how that sentence is to be parsed. This decision simply reiterates something that has long been held, namely that the states do not have the right to do something expressively forbidden at the federal constitutional level. As I said, it is a good decision in my opinion. And that is independent of one's opinion about the right to bear arms. It is a good decision because it reaffirms that the federal constitution is the supreme law of the land.
I would like to see a decision that pushed the point further. One that denied the right to bear arms except while in the military, or one that took all restrictions (" . . . shall not be infringed") away from owning and bearing arms. Either way it would cause a constitutional crisis and, I suspect, two new amendments would be proposed. One effectively banning private weapons and one allowing them without the byzantine laws and regulations now in force.
I'd vote for the second, but if the sheep win with the first, then the shearing they (or their descendants) get will be well earned and deserved.
--Pete
(06-30-2010, 12:55 AM)MEAT Wrote: I get the impression this may only be the tip of the iceberg on public opinion.
Most definitely. "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." Is the Militia the reason or a reason for the people to have the right to bear arms? Had the writers left off the first 13 words, the meaning would be clear. As it is, it is ambiguous.
I believe, from the historical evidence and from similar statements in many of the state constitutions, that the purpose was to allow the citizenry to be armed. If that belief is correct, then all the restrictions on weapons are unconstitutional, including registrations, waiting periods, etc. After all, it does not say, " . . . shall not be banned." It says, " . . . shall not be infringed." a somewhat stronger statement.
It is poorly written, not just because it is ambivalent, but because it is (I think) too general. "Arms". Not "firearms", not "guns and pistols and knives and hatchets", not "personal arms" but "Arms". Even at the time it was written, Arms referred to cannon, mortars, rockets, in addition to individual arms. Nowadays it covers a lot more.
So far, the Supremes have dodged the issue of how that sentence is to be parsed. This decision simply reiterates something that has long been held, namely that the states do not have the right to do something expressively forbidden at the federal constitutional level. As I said, it is a good decision in my opinion. And that is independent of one's opinion about the right to bear arms. It is a good decision because it reaffirms that the federal constitution is the supreme law of the land.
I would like to see a decision that pushed the point further. One that denied the right to bear arms except while in the military, or one that took all restrictions (" . . . shall not be infringed") away from owning and bearing arms. Either way it would cause a constitutional crisis and, I suspect, two new amendments would be proposed. One effectively banning private weapons and one allowing them without the byzantine laws and regulations now in force.
I'd vote for the second, but if the sheep win with the first, then the shearing they (or their descendants) get will be well earned and deserved.
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?