-------- Original Message --------

Subject: Re: The Real Meaning?-- DC v. Heller: 5-4 Victory for RKBA

Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 17:04:46 -0500

From: Craig Roberts centurion007@fairpoint.net

To:

Here is an article I just sent to our local paper here regarding this. You might find it most

interesting. Too bad the Supreme despots did not study as much history as they did

shysterism.

Armed Citizens, the Supreme Court and the 2nd Amendment

By Craig Roberts

In respect to the recent Supreme Court decision concerning the 2nd Amendment and the right

to bear arms, one has to understand exactly what, and who, is the "militia." The Supreme Court

basically affirmed the right for the individual to bear arms, and that it was not hinged on a

person being in a "militia". However, the dissenting judges tried hard to make the right to bear

arms an issue in which only the state-sponsored "militia," i.e. the National Guard, was what the

Constitution referenced. However, even if that were the case, it would still have to guarantee

the citizen's individual right to "keep and bear arms" due to the actual intent of the founding

fathers.

I did a lot of research on this years ago. It seems a "well regulated militia" is not the "National

Guard," but instead was a group of armed citizen volunteers who practiced with their firearms

and "regulated" them by keeping them sighted in and keeping in practice. It also had to do with

being "well led" by those who had the experience and capability to lead in a military fashion or

operation. It's just that simple. And the "militia" in those days consisted of every armed

able-bodied male between 15 and 55. Life spans were not as long as they are today, so that

was pretty old in those days. When I researched that it had to do with being physically able to

participate, carry a pack, march distances, and be able to participate in combat. Today there

are many 65 and even older who can do that to some extent. Also, the arms were considered

"proper" if they were consistent with what an army would carry, not just any old fowling piece or

hunting musket. If that were applied today, we could have automatic weapons etc. But a

fearful tyrannical government fears the firepower of such a body, hence the "gun control laws"

that reduce the firepower of the citizenry. Personally, I think the most important factor for a

citizens "militia," i.e. able bodied shooters, is marksmanship. The CMP is an excellent example

of arming and training citizens in the art of the rifle.

Global socialists cannot stand anyone having arms except those bodies of troops THEY control

and can use for their own agendas.

Believe it or not, the Constitution does not provide for a standing army. Instead, it provides for a

Navy (hence a Marine Corps) and a form of "Coast Guard" (back then it was the Revenue

Service using coastal "revenue cutters." The government was to depend on the various

militias (every able-bodied and armed male citizen) and volunteer brigades and regiments

raised by the states when needed that could be called up by the President. Article One,

Section 8, states the CONGRESS shall have the power to...."declare war, grant letters of

marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; to raise and

support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term

than two years, to provide and maintain a navy; to make rules for the government and

regulation of land and naval forces; 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 officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline

prescribed by Congress."

The clause concerning organizing and disciplining the militia was only to take place "while in the

service of the United States" during a call-up. Note that the appointment of officers (including

ranks) and training was reserved for the various states. This actually was the basis of the draft

as well. Since all able-bodied males were eligible for "call up" as members of the militia,

they/we could be called individually as well as in groups.

Note that in the Civil War that the Union and Southern regiments were almost all state-provided

militia units that were raised after the war started and were named in reference to the states

they came from (20th Maine, 8th Kentucky, 1st Georgia etc.) Many of the regiments were

raised by a local "Colonel in Chief" who had the money to arm and equip the members,

therefore he was automatically the commanding officer. Regiments and Brigades varied in size

in relation to the fortunes of the commander and his monetary limitations. When the war ended

, they all were disbanded and went home.

In fact, at the first Battle of Bull Run/Manassas, most of the Union troops were 90 day militia

volunteers who were called up after the bombardment of Fort Sumter. They were ill-trained,

and ill-equipped. Also, one of the first regular units were US Marines under the command of

Marine Major John G. Reynolds, a Mexican War vet, who had 35 years military experience at

the time. He had command of four companies of 80 men each, detailed out of the Marine

Barracks in the Washington, DC naval yard. He possibly commanded the only "regular" full

time military units on the field.

All other units were state-raised militia with the exception of Division staffs. The units on the

Union side came from New York, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Indiana, Ohio

, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Maine, Connecticut and even Wisconsin. They were armed by

themselves (the individual member), their commanders, and federal arsenals such as Harper's

Ferry. (Most brought their own muskets, but artillery came from arsenals or state militia

headquarters). Every unit had its own distinguishable uniform (some quite colorful).

Even federally owned land was limited, and according to the Constitution, could only consist of

Navy Yards, Forts, Arsenals and other needful buildings. It was not until westward expansion

after the war that massive amounts of land fell into Federal hands such as "forts," which

incorporated hundreds and thousands of acres, and described as "forts" to be in abeyance to

the Constitution. Hence such large tracts as Fort Sill, Benning, Bragg, Hood etc. All the small

forts on the frontiers (Gibson, Supply, and Towson, to name a few) which were basically walled

structures and supply depots fell by the wayside and became state-owned property or sold to

civilians.

It was not until Theodore Roosevelt became president that the government obtained other

"federal properties" in the National Parks Act that we strayed from the above. Now Congress

(and the UN) has managed to legislate more land under such things as wildlife refuges and

open rivers areas etc. by using ecological excuses. The Depression added to this with such

organizations as the Tennessee Valley Authority and other dam/electric energy projects, and

Corps of Engineers "flood control' projects that added more land to the federal property bank.

Back to the 2nd Amendment issue and the Supremes: IF the Supremes had spent as much time

studying this nation's history as they did law school stuff, they'd know exactly what the "militia"

was, and the intent of the founding fathers. It had nothing to do with self-protection or hunting.

It had everything to do with the citizen�s right and duty to defend the country from all enemies,

both foreign and domestic!

Craig Roberts

LTC, USA, Ret.

http://www.riflewarrior.com

================================

Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 3:53 PM

Subject: The Real Meaning?-- DC v. Heller: 5-4 Victory for RKBA

Dunno who wrote this, but it's accurate. Do you recall what "arms" the Brits were after in Concord?

Not just rifles & shotguns, but CANNON. The private colonists had CANNON, the equivalent of today's mortars & grenade launchers, not just pocket pistols.

Reckon those cannons were for hunting or protection against burglars?!?

NO, the purpose of the second amendment was to assure that we were always well armed and able to overthrow our own government when it escaped its Constitutional Cage.

It's great that the Supremes at least acknowledge that our right to bear arms includes the right to own guns to protect our homes from burglars, but we've still got a ways to go before this out-of-control government admits that we also have a right to effectively defend ourselves against our government, the intent of the founders.

--bob & lou

http://www.wynman.com

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf

> Held:

> 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a

> firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for

> traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

> Pp. 2-53.

My, my. I have most carefully read the 2nd and nowhere in it do I find

the word 'firearm' or 'gun'. What I find is the word 'arms'. That is

an all-inclusive term. It means anything from a rock in hand to.....

whatever. Any weapon. ANY weapon. ALL weapons. I will point out that

the redcoats of General Gage in Boston were seeking CREW SERVED

WEAPONS-- cannon-- when they made their foray to Concord on April 19,

1775.

> (a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but

> does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative

> clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it

> connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2-22.

...being necessary to the security of a free state-- and what

interferes with a 'free state'? A meddlesome government...

Kindly notice that for all the lawyer talk, all the barnyard byproduct

legalese, the wording used in the 2nd is all positive and 'mandatory'

and inclusive for the citizenry, and precisely the opposite for

government. Government is utterly forbidden any ability to meddle,

while the citizenry is utterly empowered and made free of government

interference.

NECESSARY to the security of a free state....

... the RIGHT of the people--. inherent personal prerogative immune to

government meddling

...to keep and bear ARMS-- no restriction; any and all weaponry

SHALL NOT be infringed-- plain, positive, inclusive. Government, thou shalt

not

> (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court's interpretation

> of the operative clause. The "militia" comprised all males physically

> capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederal-

> ists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in

> order to disable this citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing

> army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress

> power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear

> arms, so that the ideal of a citizens' militia would be preserved.

> Pp. 22-28.

I suppose they hope that no one notices that this completely

invalidates most of the other 'findings' of the 'opinion'. That is,

(b) above points out that GOVERNMENT is the likely enemy and likely

target of any true employment of the purpose, the 'prefatory clause',

of the Amendment. Now, like a cat having defecated on linoleum, the

'honorable justices' set out to cover that 'inconvenient fact'.

> (c) The Court's interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-

> bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately

> followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28-30.

> (d) The Second Amendment's drafting history, while of dubious

> interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals

> that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms.

> Pp. 30-32.

'Dubious interpretative worth'? They mean, the part where the Founders

clearly meant for the citizens to be armed and capable of overthrowing

the government when necessary?

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts

and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the

late 19th century also supports the Court's conclusion. Pp. 32-47.

Once upon a time, in the lifetime of my father and grandfather, if you

wanted a weapon-- ANY weapon, ALL weapons, you simply went and bought

it. Artillery, explosives, auto weapons, short barreled anything, it

mattered not. If you wanted it and had the cash (gold and silver

coin), you found a willing seller and bought it. And who gives a bit

of care to what 'scholars, courts, and legislators' think about

something which is declared out of bounds to any restriction? The 2nd,

as written, precludes any and all effort to restrict weaponry or the

citizens' access to weaponry of their choice.

(f) None of the Court's precedents forecloses the Court's

 interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor

Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264-265, refutes the individual-

rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not

limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather

limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by

the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47-54.

Here comes the barnyard byproduct. Here is the effort to remove and

hide the actual purpose of the 2nd-- that is, to hold a weapon at the

head of government. Here is the effort to 'allow' the criminals of

government to 'define' what 'type' of weapon the criminals are going

to 'allow'. And further, to declare 'for lawful purposes'-- that is,

what government SAYS is 'lawful'... and shooting politicians and their

'enforcers' for attempting to infringe on the 'security' of our 'free

state' will certainly not be considered a 'lawful purpose'. And

certainly not after having 70-odd years to freely restrict citizens'

access and employment of arms of the CITIZENS' choice.

I would ask-- what 'lawful purpose' did the armed citizenry of

Lexington and Concord Massachusetts and their environs pursue? Please

note that the 'lawful government' which would have been providing the

definition of 'lawful purpose' was the object of the exercise-- that

is, the redcoat enforcers of King George III.

 2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.

It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any

manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, con-

cealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment

or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast

doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by

felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of fire-

arms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or

laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of

 arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those

"in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition

of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

 Pp. 54-56.

So now they bless and allow 70-odd years of meddling to stand. Piss on

the Court. Whether or not the 'average gun