I don't know any liberals who believe Congress or Bush-Cheney should be allowed to disarm the National Guard. But I have heard neocons, theocons and chickenhawks get hostile because I pointed out that the refusal of the Bush-Cheney regime to adequately arm the National Guard in Iraq was an infringement of the people's right and the individual Guardsmen's right to keep and bear arms. And if you don't think body armor is part of the arms of war, you should ask the troops in Iraq whether body armor - especially the most effective body armor available - is "ordinary military equipment". begin excerpt Considering Sonzinsky v. United States (1937), 300 U.S. 506, 513, and what was ruled in sundry causes arising under the Harrison Narcotic Act footnote 2 - United States v. Jin Fuey Moy (1916), 241 U. S. 394; United States v. Doremus (1919), 249 U. S. 86, 94; Linder v. United States (1925), 268 U. S. 5; Alston v. United States (1927), 274 U. S. 289; Nigro v. United States (1928), 276 U. S. 332 - the objection that the Act usurps police power reserved to the States is plainly untenable. In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158. The Consbreastution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power - "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." With obvious purpose to butture the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view. Most if not all of the States have adopted provisions touching the right to keep and bear arms. Differences in the language employed in these have naturally led to somewhat variant conclusions concerning the scope of the right guaranteed. But none of them seem to afford any material support for the challenged ruling of the court below. In the margin some of the more important opinions and comments by writers are cited. Footnote 3. We are unable to accept the conclusion of the court below and the challenged judgment must be reversed. The cause will be remanded for further proceedings. 3. Concerning The Militia - Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252; Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U. S. 275; Fife v. State, 31 Ark. 455; Jeffers v. Fair, 33 Ga. 347; Salina v. Blaksley, 72 Kan. 230; 83 P. 619; People v. Brown, 253 Mich. 537; 235 N. W. 245; Aymette v. State, 2 Humphr. (Tenn.) 154; State v. Duke, 42 Texas 455; State v. Workman, 35 W. Va. 367; 14 S. E. 9; Cooley's Consbreastutional Limitations, Vol. 1, p. 729; Story on The Consbreastution, 5th Ed., Vol. 2 p. 646; Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, Vol. X, p. 471, 474. U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) end excerpt -- Yours truly, The Lone Weasel
|
