Some Clarity on U.S. v Emerson
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 23:35:23
Subject: U.S. v Emerson
Greetings from what used to known
as "The Constitution State":
In the recent article "A Right
of the People" by Dave Kopel & Glenn Reynolds (National Review Online
- 10/23/01, http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel102501.shtml),
I was concerned about some very key issues that were given a broad and assumptive
"Most Second Amendment advocates, on the other hand, have always noted
that ˜just as with other constitutional rights like free speech˜ the right to
arms is not absolute, and is subject to reasonable regulation."
a) Please define "most". And, why
would this be so? Does not the phrase "shall not be infringed" plainly
mean what it says? Looks like an "absolute" to me!
b) It is a crime against the art of professional writing (and very wrong)
to use the word "regulation" in this sentence. The use of a word
that had quite a different meaning in 1700's than it has in the year 2001
is a poor choice at best.
"People can differ in good faith about what constitutes reasonable regulation."
a) As can be seen in 1b, this is only possible
if the word "regulation" (or "well regulated") is not
translated in to modern parlance, and the parties speaking are each, separately,
using a dictionary of each period.
b) "Reasonable regulation" (using year 2001's meaning) has resulted
in the deaths of not only the 6 million Jews (and 7 million other "undesirables")in
Nazi Germany, but also the deaths of an additional 20 Million people in other
countries during the 20th century alone. So, one can plainly see that there
can be no such thing as "reasonable regulation". Indeed, "reasonable
regulation" has proven itself to be most unreasonable and deadly.
"The Fifth Circuit noted that the Second Amendment allows "limited,
narrowly tailored specific exceptions or restrictions for particular cases that
are reasonable and not inconsistent with the right of Americans generally to
individually keep and bear their private arms as historically understood in
a) What part of "shall not infringe"
did not the Court understand?
"...make it clear that ordinary, law-abiding people cannot be prohibited
from owning ordinary rifles, shotguns, and handguns."
a) Please define "ordinary". If
the definition excludes the private ownership current military grade firearms,
then the 2nd Amendment is gutted of it's true intent. The result being twofold.
First, the unorganized militia can no longer effectively provide security
to a free state. And secondly, that the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution
then becomes a noble (but worthless) heap of paper stripped of the ultimate
check and balance. Namely, the ability of the American "We, the People"
to abolish or change a Government that may at some time no longer "serve"
I hope I have made my concerns clear.
I look forward to a considered reply.
~ Douglas Sharafanowich
Without the Second, there is no First
To Get Your Letters Printed Here
Click here and read submission guidelines.