2ND Amendment Ruling Due in 2008

[Haggis@wk]

A Hessville woman will not be charged in the shooting death of a man accused of breaking into her home in November and stalking her.

The Nov. 12 shooting of Bergner as he cornered the 51-year-old woman in an upstairs bedroom closet capped a month of escalating terror -- chronicled in a series of police reports filed by the woman -- which included break-ins, vandalism and assaults in her workplace.

Protect yourself, stop the predator, reload, call 911. Pretty much what I would recommend to any woman (or anyone!) facing a similar situation.

Relying on police to get to you in time is literally taking your life in your own hands.

[Haggis@wk]

80-year-old John Wayne fan puts attacker in hospital

Investigators say they were definitely going to rob him - possibly even kill him.
But an 80-year-old North Texan wasn't about to let that happen, so he took action.
One of the suspects is in the hospital and both are facing charges.
Two men obviously thought James Pickett, 80, was an easy target when they showed up at his home on Saturday with a knife.

"He just came through that door, stabbing and beating," said Pickett…

… even at 80, he is someone you just don't mess with.
What the men didn't know is Picket had taken a pistol and put it in his pocket before opening the door.

The brothers may have planned to kill James Pickett, investigators say.
"He jumped and turned and I shot him," Picket said.

The two brothers, Paul and Holden Perry, ran but didn't get far before calling an ambulance.
A bullet just missed Paul Perry's spine.

"The only problem was I run out of bullets," Picket said.
…Both brothers face assault, burglary and robbery charges.

Deputies assure James Pickett they aren't likely to get out of jail anytime soon but he isn't worried.

"I think I'm a ten times better shot than and he is... But they best not come back," he said.

I LOVE living in Texas!!!!

[Shapley]

D.C. Gun Ban Proponents Ignoring Facts

Unfortunately, the Department of Justice has actually sided with D.C. in important parts of the case, and the court has granted Solicitor General Paul Clement 15 minutes to make his argument. While largely paying lip service to the Second Amendment being an "individual right," the Department of Justice brief argues that an "unquestionable threat to public safety" from unregulated guns requires a lower standard must be adopted in defending it than is used to defend the rest of the Bill of Rights. But if they really believed that their evidence showed this, just as with the classic exception for the First Amendment of "falsely shouting fire in a theater," it wouldn't be necessary to treat the Second Amendment differently .

But what has not gotten much attention is that for the first time in U.S. history an administration has provided conflicting briefs to the Supreme Court. Vice President Dick Cheney has put forward his own brief arguing that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right that is no different than freedom of speech.

The DOJ constitutional argument is similar to that of D.C. It argues that since the government bans machine guns, it should also be able to ban handguns. And they claim that D.C. residents still retain a right to self-defense because the city doesn't ban locked shotguns and rifles. Locks, they claim , "can properly be interpreted" as not interfering with using guns for self-protection.

Factual errors underlie the rest of the argument — for in D.C., rifles and shotguns become illegal as soon as they are unlocked. That means the city can prosecute anyone who uses one in self-defense, even if it was locked before the incident. Is that a "reasonable" restriction on self-defense? Gunlock requirements are also associated with more deaths and more violent crime as they make defensive gun uses more difficult. Machine guns are also not banned .

It makes sense that the DOJ is backing the ban, given that it would lose regulatory power if it were struck down. As the DOJ lawyers note in the brief, striking down this ban could "cast doubt on the constitutionality of existing federal legislation."

[Haggis@wk]

Calif. Woman Slain on the Phone With 911

A woman was asking a 911 dispatcher for help when her pleas were interrupted by gunshots, then silence. She was shot to death.

[piqaboo]

It was the husband. No reason for a burgler to shoot under the circumstances.

[Haggis@wk]

It was the husband. No reason for a burgler to shoot under the circumstances.

Was it? that developed after I first read it. The moral is guns are quicker than 911!

[Serenity]

Actually, the wife was calling 911 when the intruder stepped into a snare trap set by the wife and was hauled upward like an animal. In surpirse, the intruder shot the weapon but the bullet ricocheted harmlessly. The wife hung up the phone (the silence to the 911 operator) and had the intruder disposed of by "Pulp Fiction-type characters". Moral of the story: the intruder was a victim of over self-confidence from carrying a firearm.

[Haggis@wk]

Moral of the story: the intruder was a victim of over self-confidence from carrying a firearm.

..But the real victim wouldn't have been

[piqaboo]

It was the husband. No reason for a burgler to shoot under the circumstances.

Was it? that developed after I first read it. The moral is guns are quicker than 911!

No, that was me, guessing.

[Haggis@wk]

GALLUP SECOND AMENDMENT POLL: "A solid majority of the U.S. public, 73%, believes the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the rights of Americans to own guns."

"Do you believe the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right of Americans to own guns or do you believe it only guarantees members of states militias such as the National Guard units the right to own guns"

Numbers the "Right to Choose" folks could only dream about.

[barfle]

One thing I find interesting is that when I was part of an organized militia (the US Army), I was NOT allowed to keep and bear arms unless the arm was issued to me by the Army.

Even in combat zones (of which one existed at the time) my weaponry was restricted to those provided by the government. Those who procured their own guns, knives, etc. were subject to disciplinary action, although it was rarely applied.

I have no idea how this applies to the second amendment other than the justification stated in it did not apply from 1967-1969.

[Shapley]

By definition, the Army is not a militia.

The short definition of militia is: soldiers who are also civilians: an army of soldiers who are civilians but take military training and can serve full-time during emergencies

Thus, the Army Reserve and the National Guard are components of the militia, but the regular army is not. It was the distinction between having a militia and a standing army that comprised much of the discussion at the founding, which led to the wording of the 2nd Amendment. The founders feared a standing army, and the Constitution puts limits on the raising of armies.

[analog]

In a lighter vein,

Nobody ever mentions that delightful pun in the 2nd amendment...


We all know Jefferson was an avid amateur botanist and Franklin an accomplished wordsmith.

Get one of those dictionaries with a timeline for the etymology.
Around 1760 "Regulation" acquired a botanical meaning:

"3 a: the process of redistributing material (as in an embryo) to restore a damaged or lost part independent of new tissue growth b: the mechanism by which an early embryo maintains normal development"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/regulation

Clearly Franklin and Jefferson wanted the public to have a lot of small arms about so that a militia could be 'well regulated", that is formed up from the grassroots folk at the drop of a hat; not to mention 'well regulated' as in a smooth functioning timepiece.

The double entendre is surely why those two radical old wags made it the second amendment not the first?

a.

[barfle]

the Army Reserve and the National Guard are components of the militia, but the regular army is not.

I can just imagine what would happen to someone who brought his switchblade to a National Guard meeting.

It was the distinction between having a militia and a standing army that comprised much of the discussion at the founding, which led to the wording of the 2nd Amendment. The founders feared a standing army, and the Constitution puts limits on the raising of armies.

Indeed, as I interpret the Constitution, a standing Navy is authorized, but a standing Army is not. No mention of an Air Force, which was once part of the Army but certainly could come under the auspices of the Navy.

Somehow I doubt an appeal to the Constitutionality of a standing Army would have done me any good in attempting to avoid the draft.

[barfle]

In a lighter vein...
a.

[Shapley]

True,

We used to adhere to the Constitution prior to World War II. The Army reverted to 'reserve' status (i.e. militia) during peacetime. After World War II (1948, I believe) the old War Department was abolished and replaced with the Department of Defense. We then maintained a standing army at all times, using the pretense of a 'cold war' to justify it, somewhat, constitutionally. It was at that time that the Army Air Corps became the USAF, I believe (I don't feel like Googling right now to be sure).

Personally, I think it was the idea of placing command of the nuclear arsenal in the hands of fifty governors that prompted the change, but I wasn't around then so I could be mistaken.

When the Berlin wall fell, and the Cold War was declared at an end, President Bush, and President Clinton after him, began scaling back the Army, shifting much of the personnel to militia status. We still maintain a standing army, although significantly smaller than during its' cold war heyday. Now, when I hear people complaining that the war is 'putting a strain on the National Guard', I just tell them to blame the Constitution. Although, to be fair, the merger of the National Guard and the Army Reserve does present some difficulties. The Constitution authorizes the Congress to disipline that part of the militia in service to the United States government, but does not state how that service comes to be (unless it refers to wartime service, but that is mentioned in a seperate paragraph). In my humble opinion, the organized militia is divided between the Federal Militia and the National Guard, which are under the command of the governors. The merger of the guard and reserve blurrs that distinction, however.

The unorganized militia is composed of the rest of us.

Interestingly, in the court decision on Miller, it was noted that the law at that time required members of the militia to report for duty bearing their own arms, of the type in general use at the time. I would gather that was the wording of the US Code at that time, although I'm sure it has been changed since.

[barfle]

After World War II (1948, I believe) the old War Department was abolished and replaced with the Department of Defense. We then maintained a standing army at all times, using the pretense of a 'cold war' to justify it, somewhat, constitutionally. It was at that time that the Army Air Corps became the USAF, I believe (I don't feel like Googling right now to be sure).

The US Air Force, the CIA (wll, the act forming it), and I were born on the same day. Along with F1 racing mogul Giancarlo Minardi.

[Shapley]

The US Air Force, the CIA (wll, the act forming it), and I were born on the same day. Along with F1 racing mogul Giancarlo Minardi.

Sounds like you're in good company.

[Haggis@wk]

shifting much of the personnel to militia status.

Most Americans have no idea how much was shifted to the "Militias," mostly equipment, but people too.

The Gulf War could not have been fought in the same way in 1989 since most of the hard runways we used to great effect hadn't been built yet and it was sheer fortuitousness that they were built at all in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and elsewhere (I forget)

The real shocker is that the Gulf War probably couldn't have been fought at all if Saddam waited until 1991or 92 to enter Kuwait. Much of the USAF assets that stood out so well were scheduled to be scrapped or transferred to the NGs. I think every general purpose B-52s was scheduled to be retired to Davis Monthan; the A-10s AH-64 Apaches had been on the chopping block since the late '80s since the "Cold War" was over and who would ever need tank-busting equipment?

As it is, almost 1/3 of A-10s are in mothballs even today and before the first Gulf War the remainder were going to the Guard or Reserve and would have been in the middle of a change over that couldn't be halted.

And much of this had been started under Bush 41 and continued under Clinton.

We are still woefully lacking in some very critical areas and most of that shortage can be traced back to Bush and Clinton.

[Shapley]

I agree. Keep in mind a whole lot of that 'peace dividend' that President Clinton kept talking about needed to be spent on the Guard and Reserve, where the materiel was being sent, but wasn't. It's nice that much of it was used to reduce the deficit, instead of being used to increase entitlements (which the Democrats wanted to do...). Nonetheless, Clinton's unwillingness to fund maintain the materiel (and, to a lesser extent, President Bush's before him) resulted in a considerably weakened military by the time it was needed in Afghanistan.

Reckognizing that a Constitutional conflict exists when attempting to maintain an adequate military in peacetime, we find ourselves struggling to meet the military challenges of the modern world while keeping our military readiness within Constitutional restraints. I think it can be achieved, but I don't think we're achieving it.

Couple all of this with the efforts to disarm we the people (i.e., the militia) at home, and we find ourselves seriously at risk. We do need to rethink our policies in this regard, but disarming is not an option.

V/R
Shapley