NRA Prints HALF Of The Story (Barniskis)?

Neal J. Lang movwater at bellsouth.net
Mon Jul 30 21:55:54 PDT 2001


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







More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list