NRA Prints HALF Of The Story (Barniskis)?

[David and Maureen Codrea]

Jeez, I can't let this one go by...

First- I dropped that guy what-his-name from distribution because he wanted
off.

Plenty of stuff on 14A by Kopel and Halbrook pointing out how 2A was
integral to it, and how the incorporation doctrine flies in the face of its
framers.  We can speak theoretically of how it may not have been properly
ratified, but it is legally recognized in the here and now, and until it is
overturned or repealed, it is something the AG, as you point out, is
compelled to uphold.

I have never claimed to be a big Marbury fan- I merely cited one important
quotation from it that had relevance to the topic.  That quotation could
have come from Dred Scott as far as I'm concerned and it would still be
true, even though the decision of that case was repellant.

Nowhere have I ever maintained that a felon should be able to use a gun in a
crime and not get punished big time.  This is a misinterpretation of my
arguments, as my concern was for people like you and I getting caught up in
the enforcement of existing gun laws, which are and remain, as I pointed out
earlier, EXISTING CIVILIAN DISARMAMENT laws.  I didn't say PE WAS  taking
honest citizens off the street, I said that once you open the door to these
kinds of laws, enforcement can reflect the policies of the administration in
power, and that once you tolerate usurpations of power, important checks
against abuse have been ceded.

Yes, we must have strong laws to punish violent criminals; I merely suggest
that we can do this without violating the Constitution.  For starters, we
can all; be safer against predators if we repeal, instead of enforce,
unconstitutional gun control laws, as all they do is make it safer for the
criminals to operate- isn't that superior to eroding our mutual (and as you
pointed out) inalienable rights?  Personally, I think your wife OUGHT to be
able to have a firearm on school grounds, and concealed on her person, and
that it should be able to hold more than 10 rounds and be semiautomatic, and
even be newly purchased even though it is on a federal "ban" list.  I think
she ought to be able to have a gun even if she got in a fight and was
convicted of misdemeanor assault.  These are existing gun laws, and if she
violates them, they can carry federal penalties.  I don't want to infringe
on her right to keep and bear arms, nor allow the feds to have that power,
especially when the proscription against them doing this could not be more
clear. Can you guarantee that Project Exile can NEVER be abused to do this?
If so, I will surrender on this point and shut up.  I know that NRA INTENDS
that PE will only affect "those people", but you have failed to demonstrate
how NRA will have any say in the matter should political power shift
dramatically to the Democrats.

And I totally reject your assertion that  "my" fight (where the heck did you
get THAT impression?) against Project Exile is either hopeless or useless,
especially judging from the gun rights leaders who have signed the
denouncement statement on keepandbeararms.com.
https://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=720
They represent some of the finest intellects and activists in the rkba
community, and you cannot ignore them or their concerns if you hope to be
either  effective and innovative.  Why on earth would you want to?

Here's the problem, Neal- there ain't no light at the end of this tunnel.
There will be more back-and-forth and more debating, and more time composing
answers and rebuttals and counter-arguments and "gotcha's", but I don't see
either one of us budging from our original stance.

I suppose I could continue spending time each day on this doing
point-counterpoint with you, but  I don't see where it's gonna get us.  It
takes time away from too many other things that I have already prioritized.
So I hope you understand that I need to back off of this- I think I was
pretty up front about that from the start.  I don't think anyone can accuse
me of ducking anything, but I'd appreciate it if we could just agree to
disagree on this and call a truce.  Feel free to have the last word on this,
but I just GOTTA drop this for now.

Best,
David
p.s.- not "Dave"- call it a snotty affectation on my part, but I just never
cared for it...:-)
p.s.s.- the following from Merrill Gibson addresses "compelling state
interest"- it is on topic, and this you'll like, Neal, it defends Ashcroft's
position.  Merrill makes some good points- I ain't totally on board with it,
but that's probably just because I'm so stiff-necked and ornery.

---

-----Original Message-----
From: Merrill Gibson [mailto:merrill at infosuper.com]
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2001 4:26 PM
To: West LA MC

Subject: compelling state interest

There has been quite a bit of concern expressed on the net lately by
pro-freedom individuals concerning John Ashcroft's use of the phrase
"compelling state interest" in a footnote to a letter he wrote to the NRA.

In this letter which has been the subject of much nationwide commentary,
Ashcroft expresses his strong belief (which was later described by his
office as official Justice Department policy) that the Second Amendment
guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms.  However in this
letter, he added a footnote that said that he felt that laws which restrict
firearm usage were acceptable as long as they were for a "compelling state
interest." This phrase does have a rather Stalinist ring to it, but in fact
it represents a good thing for us, not a bad thing, as I explain below.

"Compelling state interest" is not a phrase that Ashcroft chose just because
he felt the literal meaning of the three words best expressed his belief.
"Compelling state interest" is a legal term with a rather precise and
specialized legal meaning.  In the US legal system, laws can be challenged
based on the charge that they violate a right.

There are various levels of scrutiny, or tests, that a law must pass in
order to be ruled constitutional.  The very highest level of scrutiny, the
hardest test for a law to pass, is called "strict scrutiny,"

and this is the level that is associated with "compelling state interest." A
law must be shown to have a "compelling state interest" before it passes the
"strict scrutiny" test.  I want to emphasize that none of our rights are
protected at any higher level than this.  This is the level that free
speech, the right to avoid self incrimination, and other of our most sacred
rights are protected at.  It would be comforting to many people if there
were such a thing as a right that was absolutely protected, so that no law
could be passed that even appeared to violate it, but there is just no such
thing in the US legal system.

Note that it is this "compelling state interest" test that some of our
enemies are most concerned about.  Read Charles Schumer or Dianne
Feinstein's comments on Ashcroft's letter and you will see that this part of
the letter is what scares them the most.  They know that "compelling state
interest" is a very high bar, and that many existing laws, let alone the new
laws they want, won't pass it.

I don't mean to suggest that those who are worried about this phrase have
NOTHING to be concerned about.  When they describe it as a "loophole" they
are still right, although it is the smallest loophole possible under the US
legal system.  If the Supreme Court should unequivocally declare the Second
Amendment an individual right, and thus firmly establish "compelling state
interest" as a test for all gun laws, our enemies will immediately then
begin trying to prove that there is a "compelling state interest" in their
schemes.  They'll have a whole lot harder time of it than they do now, but
the fight will go on.


Merrill








----- Original Message -----
From: "Neal J. Lang" <movwater at bellsouth.net>
To: "David Codrea (E-mail)" <codrea4 at home.com>
Cc: <Director at KeepAndBearArms.com>; <air.man at att.net>;
<brian at citizensofamerica.org>; <cypherpunks at cyberpass.net>;
<George at Orwellian.Org>; <declan at well.com>; <freematt at coil.com>;
<dial911book at yahoo.com>; <lrrankin at silcom.com>; "Peter Mancus (E-mail)"
<pmancus at prodigy.net>
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2001 9:55 PM
Subject: NRA Prints HALF Of The Story (Barniskis)?


> E-mail From the Desk of Neal Lang
>
> Hi, Dave,
> Again thanks for the prompt and thoughtful reply.
> >In re what Ashcroft can do as head of the DoJ:  same thing they did after
> the 14th Am- protect rkba and other rights, albeit they did it there
> selectively.  I'd like to see the DoJ prosecute a gov. agency for denying
a
> citizen their 2A rights.  You can bet THAT case would make it up to SCOTUS
> post-haste. Don't think that's likely, due to "pragmatism" and
> "compromise".  I am heartened to see Metaja denied advancement- we shall
> see how they continue with Emerson, and if they pursue the current DoJ
> position...
> Is the 14th Amendment even valid?  I have seen some interesting evidence
> that says maybe not.  (See the Unconstitutional 14th Amendment at:
> http://www.barefootsworld.net/14uncon.html - for some real interesting
> stuff.  Apparently Herr Reno wasn't the first with the "jack-booted
> thugs"?)  ("Jack-booted thugs?" Hmmm!  Didn't Wayne LaPierre of the NRA
> make the phrase a National Cause Celeb?  Didn't George I burn his Life
> Member NRA card because of Wayne's use of that expression to describe our
> friends at ATF? Hmmm!  Not bad for a HCI clone!) Anyway, assuming it was
> correctly passed and ratified - now what?
> According to the Supremes, Dave, apparently the rkba was not included in
> the "privileges and immunities" of the 14th Amendment (See U.S. v.
> Cruikshank at:
> http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=92&invol=542
> - this 1875 (post 14th Amendment) case recognizes the rkba, but not for
> blacks in Louisiana.)  You being such big a Supremes fan (e.g. Marbury v.
> Madison) this of must be the definitive answer for you.  All General
> Ashcroft can do is enforce the law, Dave.
> The Congress must pass the laws; the Courts determine the constitutional
> limits of the law; and the Executive, through the AG, sees that the laws
> are "faithfully executed".  In order to prosecute, Dave, General Ashcroft
> needs a violation of the Federal Code.  Please provide the Federal Code
> cite, point out the errant governmental agency, and let's get the ball
> rolling.  I'll bet General Ashcroft will prosecute in a heart-beat if the
> facts are there to indict.
> As for Emerson, if the 5th Circuit finds for Dr. Emerson (upholds the
> District Court decision) I hope DoJ pushes it to the Supremes, who must
> take the case, IMMHO, as the Circuits will then be disjointed on
> Lauternberg.
> Worst scenario - the 5th Circuit overturns (I don't like the delay).
> Next worst - the 5th Circuit upholds the District Court decision, and DoJ
> decides to drop the case.  If so, only those lucky folks in the 5th (Texas
> and Louisiana) can stop worrying about Lautenberg, the rest of us still
> will have it over our heads.
> Best scenario - the 5th Circuit upholds the District Court decision, and
> DoJ (General Ashcroft) decides to push the case to the Supremes.  Of
course
> this a "crap shoot" but I believe Justice Thomas will be writing a 2nd
> Amendment decision that will make Sister Brady find Jesus, IMMHO.  This
> would be the current DoJ position.  If General Ashcroft pushes it, I hope
> you cut him some slack because it will be almost impossible for the
> Supremes to duck this one.
> >In re Project Exile, sorry, but you did not really answer my questions.
> Sorry, I must have missed it.  Did you include an interrogatory sign?
> >While you don't mind if the fedgov usurps powers not enumerated to them
if
> the cause is 'worthwhile', ie, taking a gangbanger off the streets, I am
> concerned more with the gov assuming powers that are not theirs- as
heinous
> as the criminals are, they wreak nowhere near the human carnage and misery
> that governments unbound do- how much further down this slope are YOU
> willing to tolerate our descent?
> Actually I do worry about Federalism, Dave, but you brought up Marbury v.
> Madison, not me. Frankly I believe a good case could be made that once
"the
> People's right to keep and bear arms" was added to the Constitution, the
> "power" was "enumerated" then and there.  I believe this is exactly what
> Madison was so afraid of in adding the "Bill of Rights" in the first
place.
>  It opened areas to the Federal government he never intended they would be
> allowed.  The originally limited Federal government now obviously has
> something to say about "the People's speech, religion, homes, papers,
guns,
> presses, assemblies, etc., etc., etc." - there are Articles now addressing
> each of these areas.  Just look at the Federal Court cases now addressing
> these areas.  You (the big Marbury v. Madison fan) can't honestly say the
> Feds aren't SUPREME.  Be careful what you wish for, my friend, it might be
> granted.   We may not be able to put the genie back in the bottle, my
> friend.
> Personally, like Madison, I believe the slope started with the "Bill of
> Rights", was greased by Marbury v. Madison and many of Justice Marshall's
> decisions, and really got into full descent with the Civil War and the
14th
> Amendment, followed closely by Sherman Anti-trust, et. al.  By the time
the
> "New Deal" arrived, we already had an income tax, Dave, and we were pretty
> well "bagged and tagged".
> Actually your idea of "Guns for Felons" will not make the top 10 of
Pro-gun
> PR programs, IMMHO, my friend.  If the Constitution says "the People's
> right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", there is also a
> corollary - that there just might be some (prisoners in Federal prisons,
> for example) that this could logically  be exclude.  So the Federal
> government makes laws to enforce same.  Once this begins, as it did in
> 1793, then obviously felons  might also be logically excluded.  That is,
of
> course, unless you wish to promote a system "responsibility-free rights".
>  A convicted felon, Dave, displays a certain lack of responsibility,
IMMHO.
>  I think that there just might be some "compelling state interest" in
> disarming such an irresponsible person.  Of course, "due process" should
be
> the arbiter in establishing felonious behavior.  Also, I have no problem
> with a convicted felon having his rights restored.  Again, only following
> appropriate "due process".
> A "compelling state interest" insists that if one is to have the "right to
> keep and bear arms", they should exercise same responsibly.  I think you
> will agree that irresponsible firearms use could prove dangerous to my, or
> your, or anyone's "Natural Right to Life". Walla!  The States has
> "compelling interest".
> >And, again, yeah, I know NRA says they are only to use such laws against
> really really REALLY bad guys- but my point is, and you have not refuted
> it, they CAN be applied to anyone.
> I believe Emerson shows that there are limits.  Can the government
> (Federal, State, and Local) disarm citizens?  Yes, Dave, it happens every
> day, with or without "Project Exile".  However, you seem to be concerned
> more about felons rights than you are about my wife rights.  She has a
> "Natural Right to Life".
> The last time my house was "invaded" my wife arrived while the perp was
> still in the house.  He was armed.  Fortunately he bugged out the back
door
> from our bed-room, while my wife was putting groceries away in the
kitchen.
>  Apparently all my NRA paraphernalia laying around the house induced him
to
> "beat feet". As much as you think this crack addict deserves the rkba,
> Dave, I can't see it.  The vast majority of "the People", including most
> gun-owners, feel the same way, I believe.  Your fight against "Project
> Exile" is really hopeless and totally counter-productive, IMMHO.  Worst of
> all it doesn't move the ball one inch forward.
> >To think that a government, already operating extra-Constitutionally, is
> going to be ever bound by the niceties of interpreting the application of
> their "illegal" laws according to how the NRA wants them to do it, does
not
> compute with me.  I think your good intentions may just be paving the road
> to Hell here- probably not under Bush, but what about under Pres. Hillary?
>  Sorry, no matter the motive, I just don't think the ends justify the
means
> here.
> If you continue to champion "gun rights for felons", Dave, we will
probably
> see President Hillary.  Jumping up and down and shouting the government
> acts unconstitutionally is really not making your case.  To my knowledge
> "Project Exile" is a designed to take "armed felons" off the street.
>  Personally I like the idea.  If you have proof that "Project Exile" is
> really taking "honest citizens" off the street, by all means, please,
> present your evidence.  I will then join you in "jumping up and down and
> shouting".  But without such evidence, you have "No Sale" here, my friend.
> Sorry!
> >I don't recall advocating political firing squads, but as long as you
> bring it up, let me add one qualifier- I hope you agree with me that their
> jury of peers should be fully informed triers of law as well as fact?
> Just my, obviously poor, attempt a satire.  "Circular Firing Squads!"  Get
> the picture?  Everyone gets in a circle and shoots at the bad guys in the
> middle, but instead, causes many "friendly fire casualties".  I was
> alluding to how we can easily destroy our friends by such tactics.
>  Actually, Dave, equating the NRA to HCI is such a tactic, IMMHO.
> I, too, agree in "jury nullification" of bad laws, Dave, as did our
> founders.
> >That's it for me on this.  "Uncle!"
> Shame, Dave, just when I saw the "light at the end of the tunnel".
> Keep the Faith,
>
> Neal
>
>
>
>
>
> Neal J. Lang (Signed)
> E-mail: movwater at bellsouth.net
>
>
>