News San Francisco's Proposed Law: Banning Handguns for Residents?

[GENIERE]

The National Guard originated from the ‘federalization’ of National Guard units soon after the Spanish-American War. The ‘founding fathers’ thought the keeping of a federal army for over two years might be a danger to freedom. The state militias were deemed necessary to respond to foreign invasions, but the militias were thereby not permitted to carry a war overseas, strictly a homeland defensive military. A navy is permitted, but not a large standing army.

The19th century the size of the regular army was small, and the militia provided most of the troops in the Spanish-American War. Early last century legislation increased the role of the National Guard as a Reserve force for the U.S. Army.

The federalization of the National Guard has left many if not all states in possible violation of the constitutionally required militia units. Militias are defined in the US Code:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

That may be the reason that most (all?) states are now addressing the problem by forming old time militia units. State militias are alive and well:

http://www.constitution.org/mil/tmp.htm

One of the main reasons, if not the prime reason, for the constitutionally required militias, as well as the individuals right to bear arms, was to allow the US citizen to defend himself from his own federal government!

Lastly, The National Defense Act of 1916 authorized the War Department to distribute arms and ammunition to organized civilian rifle clubs.

..

 

[franznietzsche]

One of the main reasons, if not the prime reason, for the constitutionally required militias, as well as the individuals right to bear arms, was to allow the US citizen to defend himself from his own federal government!

..

And the raving liberals, who hate the current government so much, are the ones who would think there is no need for this.

Unfortunately(or fortunately for the spine and gutless weasels that populate washington), the spirit of the american revolution is long dead in this country.

 

[loseyourname]

This is precisely my view on gun control as well (with the possible exception of home defense)! I have no problem with guns owned for hunting (shotguns or rifles), but find concealed carry laws disturbing.

I was under the impression that one needed to demonstrate a clear and present danger to their life in order to get a concealed carry permit. The only widespread example I can think of for people that have these permits are the bodyguards of celebrities, who often receive more than their fair share of death threats. Do you not think this is fair?

Edit: Okay, I read on and saw that in New Hampshire at least, that isn't the case. I suppose it's easier than I thought, although the poster still seemed to have a compelling reason for concealing his weapon and, considering he's never hurt anyone with it and doesn't sound likely to do so, why shouldn't he be allowed to?

 

[BobG]

One of the main reasons, if not the prime reason, for the constitutionally required militias, as well as the individuals right to bear arms, was to allow the US citizen to defend himself from his own federal government!
..

So, technically, fighting the South's secession from the United States was unconstitutional. You would think the South would have challenged that in court. Or is that a little problematic - if they did have the right to secede, then they weren't US citizens anymore and couldn't claim protection under the US Constitution, could they?

Here's one Second Amendment case that reached the Supreme Court back in 1939. It tends to support your last post better than the Department of Justice's position in your earlier post.
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0307_0174_ZS.html

The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

Edit: I can't help looking the wording of that decision and wonder if Miller would have fared a little better if he'd been transporting bazookas in the trunk of his car.

 

[Zlex]

Amazing what you can do with a dictionary: "well" - properly done or executed; "regulated" - brought under control or rule of law or central authority; "militia" - the part of the male population subject to recruitment or conscription into military service. Need updating? Yup. They failed to include females, although that might be regarded as having been addressed in suffrage amendments.

Any other questions?

Compare Coffeyville, Kansas vs. the Dalton gang to LAPD vs. bankrobbers with bulletproof vests and assault rifles in terms of total numbers of people involved and mortality rates among malefactors and law-abiding citizens. Compare the income potential for ABA members today to that for lawyers (dunno when the ABA was established) 100 years ago vis a vis law enforcement involving use of firearms during commisions of felonies. Coffeyville would still be in court for violations of civil rights of a bunch of bank robbers, reckless endangerment of lawyers' incomes, discharging firearms within city limits or populated areas, failures to file environmental impact statements with the EPA concerning lead emissions, sulfur emissions, and NOX, and just generally making governmental and law enforcement services look as absolutely foolish, impotent, and inefficient as they are today.

Dictionary.com indeed. At the time, "well regulated" meant 'trained.' There were 'regular' forces, and there were 'irregular' forces. Can you not recall a single instance of ever having read about, or referred to, the 'irregulars?' I don't think that meant they wore half-sizes from the outlets.

Is that interpretation of 'well-regulated' really such a stretch? If so, explain the common usage of 'regular' and 'irregular' in the context of armed forces at the time; what did the term 'regular' mean, in that context? It meant, formally trained, the professional army; the
regulars.' As recently as WWII, it has been expressly pointed out that the mobilization of a fighting force drawn from the population at large benefited from the fact that the population at large--ie, the people--were already largely knowledgeable about the use of arms.

So, the dependent clause lists out a benefit to the security of a free state; ready access to citizens already familiar with arms. It does not identify that as a limiting benefit, a restrictive benefit, or a required benefit, for not infringing a right of the people. It simply codifies a prohibition against infringing a right of the people. The interpretation of that as a restrictive clause or condition demands the application of words not in evidence, but even if it was, the intended meaning still applies; if/when it is necessary for the security of our free state to assemble armed forces from the body of people at large, it is still a benefit to draw from a population that already is familiar with and knowledgeable about arms.

Forget about the odd anecdote from a disgruntled D.I. and 'the Army way,' and ask yourself. You are tasked with putting together an armed force from the population at large. Choose from the following:

A] A gaggle of giggling meterosexuals, copy of 'People' tucked into their male purses, never so much as touched a firearm in their lives, not since they spent their childhood weeping at "Bambi" in the back of some dark movie theater.

B] A scruffy bunch of redneck boys, scarred up from years of playing football, raising Hell, and driving around in their gun rack laden pick-up trucks.

One group of boys actually does enter our military. The other group become correspondents for CNN, sputtering on about all the 'macho' nonsense in the big, bad world.

Choose well, because the outcome matters.

 

[BobG]

Dictionary.com indeed. At the time, "well regulated" meant 'trained.' There were 'regular' forces, and there were 'irregular' forces. Can you not recall a single instance of ever having read about, or referred to, the 'irregulars?' I don't think that meant they wore half-sizes from the outlets.

Is that interpretation of 'well-regulated' really such a stretch? If so, explain the common usage of 'regular' and 'irregular' in the context of armed forces at the time; what did the term 'regular' mean, in that context? It meant, formally trained, the professional army; the
regulars.' As recently as WWII, it has been expressly pointed out that the mobilization of a fighting force drawn from the population at large benefited from the fact that the population at large--ie, the people--were already largely knowledgeable about the use of arms.

So, the dependent clause lists out a benefit to the security of a free state; ready access to citizens already familiar with arms. It does not identify that as a limiting benefit, a restrictive benefit, or a required benefit, for not infringing a right of the people. It simply codifies a prohibition against infringing a right of the people. The interpretation of that as a restrictive clause or condition demands the application of words not in evidence, but even if it was, the intended meaning still applies; if/when it is necessary for the security of our free state to assemble armed forces from the body of people at large, it is still a benefit to draw from a population that already is familiar with and knowledgeable about arms.

If so, it refers specifically to the benefits armed citizens provide to the individual states, not the federal government.

Placing this in the context of the other first ten amendments, eight definitely are aimed at protecting the individual against the new government that was being formed. The tenth amendment is aimed at protecting the rights of the states and individuals.

There were two other proposed amendments that were rejected. One of them was later approved as the 27th amendment. The fact that this amendment was rejected tends to support the general theme of the first ten amendments as a "Bill of Rights" - not an opportunity to make routine improvements.

The first US government, a confederacy of very independent states, didn't fare that well. For one thing, the federal government was barely a token force - and one of the goals of banding together was for mutual protection. The second go around, defined by the Constitution, gave the federal government more power than a lot of people felt comfortable about. It seems reasonable to me that the specific mention of maintaining 'the security of a free state' is intended to ensure the states could protect themselves if it turned out giving so much power to a national government was a bad idea.

The next best alternative is to believe the amendment's intent is consistent with the majority of the other amendments in the Bill or Rights - to the individual, not the states. (But that kind of requires believing the extra words were just random thoughts about the amendment tossed in too keep it from looking to short).

 

[Bystander]

(snip) At the time, "well regulated" meant 'trained.' (snip)

Could you cite some source for this? Had the framers meant "trained" they would have used the word; "regulated" at the time meant exactly what it means today, "under control," be that control natural law, or some body of manmade laws or social conventions. A member of the "well regulated militia" was, to the framers of the Constitution, male, of an age between childhood and senescence, and a member of the communities party to the Constitution, or to be under the accepted "body of law" to be defined under it, colonies, states, commonwealths, NW territory, maritime ventures, whatever. Said member of militia was being obligated to enlistment or conscription in active military service to the "state" (United States) when necessary by his representatives to the constitutional convention (whether he actively supported the revolution or not, the founding fathers or not, or was even aware of what was happening --- you derive the benefits of this govt., you will defray the costs). The "well regulated militia" was selected as a military manpower pool rather than electing to rely upon mercernaries (Hessians), or pressganging foreigners (We just need you to fight that guy over there, and once you kill him, we'll see to it that you get back to your own home and family) as was common practice elsewhere in the world.

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms ..." covers the other fairly common tradition that you bring your own food, water, weapons, and ammunition to the party --- what you derive from participation in a war at your own expense are the benefits of resuming your life in the country of your birth, or naturalization.

 

[Averagesupernova]

In general, I'm kind of ambivalent about gun control laws. I don't have a big problem with the general population being able to own small arms (at least, not until I read about people using their shotgun to chop wood ).

Don't be a dick. I was asked for an example, I gave it. You weren't there. Obviously your comprehension is poor otherwise you would understand the choice that was made as opposed to climbing 40 feet with a chain saw to cut the rest of a dangling branch. I realize I didn't state how high, but I said it was too high to do safely. In my opinion that should be good enough.


This whole thread is a good example of complete lack of knowledge of a subject (guns in general) and complete assumption that how things are in ones own tiny little world is how they CERTAINLY MUST BE in the rest of the world.

This seems obvious to me because at least one person said they would change their vote. They obviously came to the thread uneducated and got a new perspective.

 

[Moonbear]

This seems obvious to me because at least one person said they would change their vote. They obviously came to the thread uneducated and got a new perspective.

Just because someone adds to their knowledge on a subject through discussion doesn't mean they came to the thread uneducated. Insulting people who enter into a discussion with enough of an open-mind to consider arguments both for and against an issue is no way to foster further open communication.

Though, I'm somewhat puzzled, because I haven't seen anyone indicate they wanted to change their vote. Where did I miss that?

 

[SOS2008]

I know this is a hot topic...

Bush either ignored or forgot about this topic. I think it was the latter--remiss about topics outside the "W Agenda."