article on McDonald case

Is there any logical reason why BOTH views cannot be correct? I mean, where's the problem in BOTH views being correct?

Please follow the link to see how the United States Code defines the militia:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html

Problem Solved!

Bill Chunko

Perhaps the LA Times should be more aware of the history of their own state. The people who wrote their state constitution believed that RKBA was an individual right, guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, binding upon state legislatures.

Mr. John Ross Browne kept detailed records of the meeting where the first California Constitution was drafted. The drafters clearly understood the right to keep and bear arms to be an individual right, guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, and binding upon the new State Legislature. They felt that putting it in the California Constitution would be redundant, since the individual right was already guaranteed, plus they were feeling a little sheepish about having already borrowed so much language from the U.S. Constitution. So they decided not to include RKBA.

So the whole individual rights idea is a recent idea according to the LA times? Well, wouldn't that just be another example of that "living Constitution" thing? Or does that only apply when judges decide it means something else, not the majority of people.

Talk about efficiency. This appears to be the same article that appeared in the Chicago Tribune. I know both papers are owned by the same company ...

I thought the article was poorly done, in part because it's so misleading. Despite the author's pitch, the question before the court is not whether gun ownership makes good social policy.

But Carl, you have to understand that as far as the Trib and Times editorial board and staffers are concerned, whether gun ownership is good social policy is well within the realm of what the Court should decide.

"The [CA constitution's] drafters clearly understood the right to keep and bear arms to be an individual right . . . So they decided not to include RKBA."

Well that didn't work out as planned, eh?

Especially in light of this recent CA Supreme Court ruling: " . . . . If Plaintiffs [gun owners] are implying that a right to keep and bear arms is one of the rights recognized in the California Constitution's declaration of rights THEY ARE SIMPLY WRONG. No mention is made in it of a right to keep and bear arms." (Kasler v. Lockyer 2000)

Just goes to show you: Better to be explicit and redundant in your writing than implicit and misconstrued by those who do not read things in context.

Mr. Browne and company let us down by not making explicit what he meant and by trusting that evil men would never gain the ascendancy in CA state government.

Please follow the link to see how the United States Code defines the militia:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html

Problem Solved!

Bill Chunko

EXCEPT for the fact that Congress DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY to define the militia through the Militia Act. Duh!!! IF Congress can define "Militia" as in the act, then Congress can define any and every term in the Constitution which would destroy the Constitution. The Congress is subordinate to the Constitution and to We the People. We the People decide what the Constitution means and Congress, the Pres, and the judges do what WE say!! Too many people have this backwards. We the People are the boss. Government is NOT in charge. But is is our fault for not knowing the facts and keeping the azzoles in their place.

If one accepts the legitimacy of the Militia Act, understand that Congress could just define the Militia to be everyone under the age of 5 or over the age of 80.

The Constitution states Congress shall "organize,...". Organizing DOES NOT mean to determine membership. The Militia consists of every person capable of bearig arms as per Fletcher (1698).

Is it not the case that both are correct. Armed citizens can form up militias if threatened. And the biggest threat as laid out by the founders was tyranny.

Regulated meant 'trained'.

Thanks for the tip on the book by Browne. The
book is available from Google as a PDF containing
a list of image and no text. So the book is not
searchable, and there is no usable index or TOC.

Not quite by chance, last week I exchanged email
with Clayton Cramer and with Don Kilmer on this
exact subject.

I was at the Nordyke en banc last year. The panel
of judges brought up the question -- why no RKBA
in CA Const.? Neither side had briefed it, and
neither side answered the judges!

When MacDonald is resolved -- tomorrow -- the
gaze will shift back to Nordyke. When the
Nordyke event-train resumes, it would be nice
to have a solid answer.

Perhaps I have found my calling. I am just
finishing up 3 400 page manuals. It is clear
to me what would be required to make an
indexed, searchable document with comments
and cross-references from the product at Google.

"Congress DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY to define the militia through the Militia Act. Duh!!! "

Then the founding generation couldn't interpret the Constitution they wrote. Current law is surprisingly similar to the Militia Act of 1792 which was the original federal legislation on the subject. Duh!!! Learn your legislative history before you spout off.

You can probably render Browne's work searchable by using one of the PDF conversion utilities that makes text of PDFs. In any event, the relevant discussion is on page 47. It'a a pity they didn't go for the redundancy.

Different topic:

If you're an attorney or a judge, it probably seems self evident that "well-regulated" means closely controlled by laws and regulations. At the time of the Founding, it most definitely did not have that meaning. In the literature of the period there are references to well-regulated horses, well-regulated hair, well-regulated men, well-regulated drawing rooms, well-regulated minds, a well-regulated scientific instrument, a well-regulated fire department and well-regulated music. In all cases, you can substitute "properly functioning" or "in its ideal state". In only one case can you substitute "governed by strict laws and rules". That's from about 30 examples from the period.

More on "well-regulated":

I found Browne's reference while looking for references to "well-regulated". In the minds of the people who drafted California's original constitution, it seems that a "well-regulated school" is one that is very well funded and staffed with the best teachers. It had nothing to do with having a lot of strict rules and laws.