On Sat, Jun 14, 1997 at 09:52:39AM -0500, William H. Geiger III wrote:
Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com> said:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Which part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand Kent??
I understand that part almost perfectly, I daresay. It's the rest of the sentence that is subject to various interpretations. The wording of the second amendment is strange, and I have read several highly opinionated pieces about what it means. I also read relevant sections of the Federalist/Anti-Federalist papers. First of all, consider what it does not say. It does *not* say "Congress shall make no law" -- meaning therefore that congress *can* make laws, as long as the rest of the sentence is observed. It does *not* say "the right of an *individual* to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It says "the people", a collective term. It references a *well-regulated* militia. Furthermore, this amendment was derived from input from two states (I don't have the documents handy, or I would tell you exactly). There are caveats in both of the documents, referring to such things as "public safety". The founding fathers were quite aware that it isn't necessary to allow criminals to carry guns at all times. Therefore my interpretation is that according to the constitution, there is a broad right for the population to own guns, but that right is fundamentally justified through "the security of a free State". Use of arms contrary to the security of the state is not justified through the second amendment, nor does the second amendment prohibit congress or the states from controlling such unjustified use of arms. Thus, the police can take guns away from common thiefs without fear of a constitutional challenge. And states, cities, and other governmental agencies can regulate arms for the public good, which may mean that certain individuals can't own weapons, or that certain kinds of weapons can be proscribed. Here's an analogy -- imagine a hypothetical addition to the Bill of Rights, amendment -1: Amendment -1 A healthy economy, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to engage in business, shall not be infringed. The key is the "engage in business" clause. Engaging in business implicitly involves a set of rules of the game. Inforcing those rules, or modifying them in light of new circumstances (eg invention of the telephone) is not the same as "infringing". -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent@songbird.com the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44 61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55 http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html