Cdn-Firearms Digest Saturday, July 12 2008 Volume 11 : Number 692 In this issue: Re: A New Face on gov't? Added to Dave. Second Amendment, RIP! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 22:44:39 +0900 From: Ian Jefferson Subject: Re: A New Face on gov't? Added to Dave. On 12-Jul-08, at 2:27 PM, Bruce Mills wrote: > I was thinking about something like this earlier this evening - we > should > be asking people questions like "Don't you care about your rights?" > and > "Don't you care about freedom?" - stuff like that. The operative > word in > questions like this is "care" - I'm sure that most people *do* care, > they > just don't have all the information at hand, and just don't know > what to > do about it. They just need to be shown what to do. Exactly. "Don't attribute to malevolence that which can be explained by incompetence. " unknown. Take a non-firearms owner/supporter to the range and let them see the non-Hollywood gun culture. Nice curmudgeonly folks, the kind that stop to help you change a flat tire. (probably grumbling the whole time about politics) IJ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 08:23:44 -0600 From: Joe Gingrich Subject: Second Amendment, RIP! http://www.jbsforum.org/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=3&p=10#p10 - -Steve Bonta - Second Amendment, RIP! "I'm sure you've heard about the Supreme Court's "landmark" ruling today on the Second Amendment. LewRockwell.com, etc., are in full celebration mode, for example. However, the majority decision (much of which I've already read) effectively destroys the Second Amendment. I assume that sooner or later, somebody else is going to figure this out, but you heard it here first. First of all, the decision makes explicit (pp. 54-55, and also in the intro) that the Supremes do not see laws against firearms ownership by felons and the mentally ill as in violation of the Second Amendment; nor do they oppose "laws imposing conditions or qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." Furthermore, after arguing earlier in the decision that the Second Amendment is NOT, as some detractors have argued, to be interpreted as only applying to weapons in existence at the time the 2nd Amendment was ratified, Alito et al say this (p. 56): "We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller [the case under discussion] said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time." We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual weapons."... It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service -- M-16 rifles and the like --may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause.... It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the eighteenth century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large.... but the fact that modern development have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right." Translation: you still can't own the good stuff, only now, laws banning or severely limiting the right to own military firearms have the countenance of a Supreme Court decision. A couple of other thoughts: Early in the document, the majority correctly note that the Second Amendment was held to protect a pre-existing right, not to bestow one. Yet only a few pages later, in summarizing their view of the amendment that informs the rest of the decision, they affirm that the Second Amendment "confers" an individual right to keep and bear arms. And while we're at it, a second very imnportant semantic point whihc sixty pages of quodlibetical argumentation ignores entirely: the entire thrust of the decision concerns whether the Second Amendment permits government to "prohibit" firearms ownership, when in point of fact, the Second Amendment uses the word "infringe." Infringement, of course, means legal interference or hindrance in any degree, up to and including, but by no means confined to, outright prohibition. Accordingly, the Supremes see the DC handgun ban as a clear violation, but have no problem with myriads of other infringements on the right, as the document makes explicit. Scott, you may recall that I predicted this outcome several months back. In the short run, gun owners will rejoice, until it dawns on everybody what this decision really means. For the first time in U.S. history, we have a Supreme Court decision defending not the Second Amendment in its pristinity but the "right" of government to infringe on the 2nd Amendment pretty much at its pleasure, as long as it does not resort to blanket firearms bans and outright confiscation of entire classes of weapons that haven't been banned already. As for military firearms like fully-automatic weapons, high-capaity shotguns, RPGs and the like, that are already prohibited, this ruling strengthens rathers than weakens such laws. Please forward this email to any who might be interested. Second Amendment, RIP!" - -Steve Bonta - ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V11 #692 *********************************** Submissions: mailto:cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca Mailing List Commands: mailto:majordomo@scorpion.bogend.ca Moderator's e-mail address: mailto:drg.jordan@sasktel.net List owner: mailto:owner-cdn-firearms@scorpion.bogend.ca FAQ list: http://www.canfirearms/Skeeter/Faq/cfd-faq1.html Web Site: http://www.canfirearms.ca CFDigest Archives: http://www.canfirearms.ca/archives To unsubscribe from _all_ the lists, put the next four lines in a message and mailto:majordomo@scorpion.bogend.ca unsubscribe cdn-firearms-digest unsubscribe cdn-firearms-chat unsubscribe cdn-firearms end (To subscribe, use "subscribe" instead of "unsubscribe".)