NRA Prints HALF Of The Story (Barniskis)?

[Neal Lang]

		E-mail From the Desk of Neal Lang

		Hi, David,
		Thank you for so generously allowing me more of your
valuable time.
		>Jeez, I can't let this one go by...
		I thought so.  "Don't you just love it when a plan comes
together?"
		>First- I dropped that guy what-his-name from distribution
because he wanted off.
		"A mind is a terrible thing to lose!"
		>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until it is overturned or repealed, it is something the AG, as you point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.
		"(B)ut it is legally recognized in the here and now" - As is
"compelling state interest".  I get the impression, David, that you like to
"pick and choose" your principles of established law.  I am afraid while you
can General Ashcroft can't.
		>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.
		The problem with using Supreme Court decisions to make your
points, David, is that when you cite one you really need to be prepared to
defend it.  Chief Justice Taney's decision in Dred Scott, for example, would
not have been possible but for the political compromise that was the U.S.
Constitution. (See Dave Kopel's "Dread the Dred Scott Reference" at:
http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel121400.shtml
<http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel121400.shtml>  - for more
information on citing the Supremes.)  Once you have established an
anti-Natural Right premise that man can be chattel, then any Court decision
is possible and likely, IMMHO.  
		>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.
		Never did I accuse you of such nonsense.  I merely observed
how you seemed to have no problem with "heat packing" felons.  Obviously I
see now that you would prefer that they must leave them home when they go to
work.  Possibly I mistook your passionate attack against using the existing
the Federal Criminal Code's prohibiting felons from possessing firearms to
mean more to you than it does.  Of course this begs the question, "Can the
government (Federal or State) prohibit felons from possessing firearms at
all?"  Exactly where do you stand, David, on the issue and why?  If you
agree that the State can and should, why not use such existing laws to
separate these felons, who infringe on our rights, IMMHO, from society?  If
not, than it logically follows that you favor the right of felons to "keep
and bear arms", doesn't it?   If there is a third (or more possibilities),
please enlighten me.  Oh, sorry, you did say you wouldn't be back, didn't
you?  I suppose this burning question will hang there unanswered for
eternity.
		>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?  
		I agree.  Strong punishment for irresponsible members of
society after Constitutionally acceptable "due process".  Repeal all those
DUMB "gun control laws" that infringe on the right of "responsible" people
"to keep and bear arms".  Now, that agreed, exactly where do we differ from
the "gospel according to Moses"? 
		>Personally, I think your wife OUGHT to be able to have a
firearm on school grounds, and concealed on her person, 
		While my wife at one time taught(?) infants in a Day Care
School, its my daughter-in-law, who teaches in a inter-city public school,
that I am most concerned about in regards to the so-called "Safe Schools
Act".  This Christmas I got her petite Berretta small caliber pistol for
self-defence.  I advised her to carry it (if possible) and worry later about
"being judged by 12, instead of being carried by six".   Interestingly, the
Federal "Safe School Act" was properly disposed of by the Supremes
(over-reaching commerce clause application instead of 2nd Amendment, but it
works for me).  The Florida statute cover the same issue is still in affect.
However, juries and judges in Palm Beach County (believe or not), where both
my daughter-in-law and I live have had enough good sense to "jury nullify"
this State law in cases involving obvious self-defence situations.
		>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.  
		Absolutely!  I feel "Full Auto" (a.k.a. real "Assault
Rifles" and "Trench Brooms") and "crew served" weapons are not
"unreasonable", as well.  After all, just how are we propose to effectively
operate under a Congressionally granted "Letters of Marque and Reprisal"
(U.S. Constitution - Article I Section 9 Paragraph 3) if our privately owned
vessel don't "sport" privately owned "crew served" weapons?  (See:
http://hartungpress.com/news/columns/baldwin/letters_of_marque_clause.htm
<http://hartungpress.com/news/columns/baldwin/letters_of_marque_clause.htm>
- for the 2nd Amendment implications.)
		>I think she ought to be able to have a gun even if she got
in a fight and was convicted of misdemeanor assault.  
		Here we might find some disagreement, as I am not so sure
that certain irresponsible conduct might not limit the exercise of rights in
specific cases.  You seem to be ready to disconnect responsible behavior
from the "right to be armed".  I am not ready to go so far.  I believe that
a "blanket recognition" that the rkba can be suspended for persons that
demonstrate irrational or irresponsible behavior is possible.  This could
possibly reach the level of "compelling state interest", IMMHO.  Would I be
upset if such laws, especially any Federal laws, should be over-turned or
legislatively repeal?  Most likely not.  However, I believe all "Civil
Rights" require a moral people to exercise them responsibly.
		>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. 
		Well the School thing is pretty much a State concern now.
That said, I too believe in an "unalienable right to keep and bear arms" as
long as it is done responsibly by responsible people.  James Madison would
agree with me on this, David, I think.
		>Can you guarantee that Project Exile can NEVER be abused to
do this?
		I note with sadness you ignored my challenge to show
evidence of government abuse in existing "Project Exile" efforts.  Instead
you have elected to challenge me to "prove a negative".  Which, of course,
is quite impossible, as I am sure you are aware.  While I understand that
"the price of liberty is eternal vigilance"  and that the Russians
(Chinese?) might in fact be coming, I do not plan on leaving work today and
going home to load-up my "trusty .06" and head for the beach with my
entrenching tool.
		Truthfully, David, I think your animosity towards "Project
Exile" appears to bordering on real paranoia.  You being an "inmate" of
California I can possibly understand why.  Can governments abuse their
power, sure, it happens all the time.  However, carrying this logic to YOUR
CONCLUSION I guess we need to disband our armed forces because they may be
(have been) "used to abuse" by our evil government.  
		I believe a corollary (possibly posed by Sarah Brady) to
your above challenge, David, might be - "If the government lets the People
keep and bear arms, can you guarantee the People will NEVER abuse this
right?"     
		>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.
		Well I truly appreciate your concession. As for the NRA
having a say should the power shift, I think your efforts to undermine the
NRA may be your self fulfilling prophesy (fantasy?).  Keep trying to weaken
the NRA and you may one day be able to say  - "See, Neal, I told you so,
those Socialist are in power and all our rights are history."  Personally,
while they may have some warts, I believe that the NRA is best and "Most
Effective and Influential" game in town when it comes to protecting my
"right to keep and bear arms." 
		>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
<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?
		I get the impression, David, of the "circled firing squad",
actually.  Even the founders where sometimes wrong, my friend.  I submit as
proof the Constitutional's enshrining of the institution of "slavery".  I
don't ignore you or them, David, and I do respect all your opinions.  I just
believe you (and they) have been blinded by a paranoia that might be
justified, however, I see no proof of the any alleged abuses forthcoming.
Can "Project Exile" be useful in our on-going struggle to "secure these
rights"?  Yes, I truly think so.  As a matter of fact - rather than continue
our dialog where I ask you questions you wont answer, and you ask me
questions that no one can answer, possibly an essay extolling the virtues of
"Project Exile" is in order.
		>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.  
		Ah! David, I empathize with your problem - "So much
ignorance and so little time."  I guess you're right - honest and open
debate never settled anything.  Just look how badly those dastardly
"Federalist Papers" mucked things up for us.  
		I think the problem might just be our separate perceptions
of the "glass".  I see it as "half-full".  While you, my friend, see it as
"half-empty" (or maybe "completely empty"?).  I suppose this defines the
perspective of the "Classical Liberal" versus the "Libertarian".  Oh Well!
Such is life.  I just hope you feel, as do I, that despite our disagreement,
we remain friends dedicated to my grandkids' freedom. 
		>Feel free to have the last word on this, but I just GOTTA
drop this for now.
		"Feel free" - as in: "By your leave?"  I was going to
anyway, but then I guess I am "stiff-necked and ornery" as well. :-)
		>p.s.- not "Dave"- call it a snotty affectation on my part,
but I just never cared for it...:-)
		Sorry, I had no idea. You should have mentioned it sooner.
No offense intended. "Snotty affectation" - COOL!
		>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- 
		Thanks, it is indeed excellent.   Not Ashcroft's position,
David - the CORRECT position.
		>I ain't totally on board with it, but that's probably just
because I'm so stiff-necked and ornery.
		Ah! But that is exactly why you are so loveable, IMMHO,
David.
		Keep the Faith,

		Neal
		 <<...>> 
		Neal J. Lang (Signed)
		E-mail: movwater at bellsouth.net
<mailto:movwater at bellsouth.net>