Mr. Justice. The milita to which the Second Amendment refers is the whole of the people. ALL of us. There is evidence aplenty in the Federalist/Anti-Federalist Papers and other quotations from the founders that clearly state this fact. Justice Scalia referred to this fact in his landmark D.C. v. Heller majority opinion.
Additionally, even the earlier SCOTUS precedent, U.S. v. Miller (1939) supported this fact. In addition to defining the types of weapons protected under the amendment (arms in common use that have a reasonable relationship to the efficiency of a militi), the Court said this:
"With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such [militia] forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.” - UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) 307 U.S. 174
This, also, was cited in the Heller opinion.
Mr. Justice, there is no sane argument to be made that military-pattern semiautomatic rifles and their component parts don’t meet both prongs of the Miller test. This test exists to clarify what weapons are protected, and why.
All of this is included in the Heller precedent that establishes once and for all that the right is an individual right of the people, that the primary reason for guaranteeing the right is to enable them to respond with their own weapons in cases of emergency, and that the right exists independent of both the Constitution and any requirement for formal membership in any military organization.
Add to this the fact that all of these issues covered in both precedents were established well after the National Guard was created under Congress's Article 1 powers, which proves that your assertion that the National Guard is that to which the amendment refers holds no water.
You can't rewrite history, Mr. Justice. We won't allow you to get away with it.
David Justice, the Colorado National Guard is good enough for you, eh? Would that be the same Colorado National Guard the machine gunned women and children during the Ludlow Massacre? No thanks, I'll keep my rifles. And your opinion on the second amendment is worthless. Supreme court already said that owning a gun is an individual right and that there are no "collective" rights, too bad for an authoritarian collectivist such as yourself.
Hi Stacy in Woodland Park…
According to your NPR source: "Overall, the city's murder rate has dropped dramatically in the FIRST THREE MONTHS of this year, to a level not seen since 1959." This information is correct, backed up by many media reports.
However, letter-writer Ron Coleman referred to FEBRUARY, the month after the presidential inaugural, when he wrote, "The next month the murder rate dropped to a 1958 low."
According to the sources below, February's 14 murders actually represented the lowest monthly total since January 1957, when there were 12. We therefore changed the year in Ron's letter to 1957...
Thanks for taking the time to read the Indy and send us your thoughts.
— Mary Jo Meade (a fact-checker at the Indy)
Sil Arteaga, none of the gun control laws Giron helped pass will save people's lives.
You may think we have all been duped, but tell me exactly how you think these laws will be enforced? How are the police going to prove a firearm originally bought in the 1990s was sold in a private transfer after July of 2013? How are they going to prove a background check was not done? How are they going to prove that someone has not continuously owned their 16 cartridges magazine?
Also, the NRA does not sell firearms and does not make money from firearm sales. 85% of their funding comes from membership dues and individual donations.
The bottom line, Sil, is that you are the one who has been duped.
And to be clear, Kirk Woundy, if you actually DID all this fact-checking that you claim then you would know that the murder rate in Chicago dropped to a 1959 low, not a 1957 low. http://www.npr.org/2013/04/02/175997137/ch…
Layers and layers of fact checkers.................................
To be clear, Mad Dog 20 20, IndyJones is not the Independent. There is no relation. And we fact-check all letters before going to press, though we cannot do the same for online comments. Thanks for reading.
Wrong again Indy. You remind me of the Gazette. They print all kinds of letters no matter how many falsehoods they contain. Who cares about facts. If I hear something on a conservative radio it must be true. Yeah right. You are wrong and Ms Lytle is correct. I had to call and make sure I got a ballot as I did not bother to vote in the previous election because there was nothing to vote for and I did not want to waste the stamp. I was told it was a good thing I called to say I was active as they were not planning on sending me a ballot. It was a good decision to block Gessler's plan. And nonsense like that which prevent people from expressing their first amendment rights can never be allowed to happen here.
The letter from the NAACP Colorado president is shockingly absurd. The fact is, since the first no-excuse mail ballot in 1994 no colorado secretary of state nor any county clerk has ever sent mail ballots to inactive-failed to vote voters because the law always prevented it. Gessler pressed for statewide uniformity so Denver's election processes are the same as El Paso's process.
Also, not one overseas ballot was prevented from being mailed. This claim is totally false.
Evers taught us that every vote is precious and shouldn't be cancelled out by an ineligible vote. Unfortunately, this letter is designed to simply take a swipe at Gessler which does a disservice to the public.
"A police chief is non-partisan and not accountable to an electorate, and is more likely to advocate for politically unpopular policies, like gun laws." -- Bill Guman
Actually Police Chiefs tend to be more partisan because they serve at the pleasure of and need to appease the politicians who appointed them. They have repeatedly been shown to not represent the opinions of the rank and file cops. They will support the positions endorsed by any politicians who promise them more money and more manpower.
"It would indeed be interesting if we placed gun laws on a statewide ballot. Opponents of our new gun laws might be surprised at the results."
Given the incredible lack of knowledge about anything regarding firearms by the general public, I would not be surprised if they would support some pretty dumb laws. Remember the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban? Do you know how many of the general public mistakenly thought it banned machine guns? The reality was it had absolutely nothing to do with machine guns. You might find support for banning AR-15s even though rifles of any kind, of which AR-15s are a subset, account for less homicides than hands and feet and less than knives. Many of the general public think hollow-points are illegal.
The bottom line is the laws might pass, but it would be out of sheer ignorance on the part of the public.
Look at the Universal Background Check and the arbitrary magazine capacity limit -- both of these laws are nearly impossible to enforce and there is no evidence that they would be effective at reducing violence involving firearms. They have support because THEY SOUND GOOD. But when you actually take more than five minutes to think about how they would work, they fall apart pretty quickly.
"First, The Assault Weapons Responsibility Act was withdrawn by Sen. Morse and will not be reintroduced. Second, the bill specifically had many exemptions: one being the situation of an intruder coming into your home (i.e., a "Make My Day" exemption); in that case, you could not be held liable. The Act was also intended for cases of negligence in storing or transferring an assault weapon, or for cases where state/federal laws were violated." -- Carol Hoffman
One thing that is true is that the bill would have classified 1870s era single shot rifles as "assault weapons".
I agree with Regina DiPadova...as a conservative I am opposed to redefining marriage but I am not opposed to gay people. And I voted on amendment 2 in whatever way it was that was on side the side of human rights (that was slightly confusing).
The recall of John Morse is certainly a 'hot button' issue. If you are on 'the other side of the fence' and do not see the need to vote for this recall, and would like to volunteer to encourage a NO vote, please sign up - and also voice your opinion on the Marijuana Issue: Allow or Ban? Thank you.
To Regina DiPadova: so you resent being called a "hater", but I'll wager you have no compunction whatsoever calling others "haters" if they have the audacity to disagree with your beliefs. I'm curious if you can see the duplicity and hypocrisy in that? I doubt it.
"The National Rifle Association has decided to throw its weight behind the John Morse recall in Senate District 11 ("NRA is gunning for Morse," IndyBlog, May 17). " -- Jonothan C. Tierce
Only after NYC Michael "32 Oz" Bloomberg started funding ant-recall efforts. The NRA wanted absolutely nothing to do with the recall effort until that happened. And quite frankly the NRA is trying to take undue claim when they say they are coordinating the effort -- the truth is they are not coordinating anything and are late in coming to the table.
"Polls continually show that "responsible gun owners," even within the NRA, support background checks and limits on large-capacity magazines, as well as various other measures designed to limit the ability of criminals and the mentally ill to obtain and wreak havoc with weapons that are far from what a sportsperson or hunter would need, or in most cases even want."
The polls are all over the spectrum regarding support or opposition. And quite frankly most of the polls do not try to ascertain if the people answering the questions even have a clue what they are talking about.
"The gun safety legislation passed under John Morse's tenure as president of the Senate is reasonable to responsible gun owners and non-owners."
Actually it is not reasonable. The laws that were passed are snake oil. They are feel-good measures that even the authors admit will have no impact. And they are nearly impossible to enforce without enacting far more onerous restrictions.
If you are interested in better understanding the laws and their flaws, I will be happy to explain in greater detail.
Stacy, you are referring no doubt to the email controversy. According to Wikipedia:
"In November 2009, hackers obtained a number of Mann's e-mails with climate researchers at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, and published them on the Internet, sparking the Climatic Research Unit email controversy. Pennsylvania State University (PSU) commissioned two reviews related to the emails and Mann's research, which reported in February and July 2010. They cleared Mann of misconduct, stating there was no substance to the allegations, but criticized him for sharing unpublished manuscripts with third parties."
"The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the National Science Foundation carried out a detailed investigation, which it closed on 15 August 2011. It agreed with the conclusions of the university inquiries, and exonerated Mann of charges of scientific misconduct."
"In October, 2010, Mann wrote an op ed in the Washington Post in which he described several past, present and projected attacks on climate science and scientists by politicians, drawing a link between them and 'the pseudo-science that questioned the link between smoking cigarettes and lung cancer, and the false claims questioning the science of acid rain and the hole in the ozone layer.' Calling them 'not good-faith questioning of scientific research [but] anti-science', he called for all his fellow scientists to stand against the attacks."
Why Mr. K you are right? In the "intervening years" science has gone a long way. Micheal Mann has shown everyone how to cherry pick data and ignore all data that shows anything other than what he wanted. He showed people how to "hide the decline". And now with all these "advancements" the little people have learned how to ignore all other atmospheric measurements except the ones coming out of an observatory on the side of an inactive volcano that is within 10 miles of two active volcanoes. Yeah, "science" has gone a long way, a long way backward that is.
"But the change Dr. James Hanson told us of then was global COOLING. That's right kiddies, we were told there was a coming ice age due to human activity." -- Stacy in Woodland Park
While I will not weigh in on weather or not humans are causing climate change -- the climate has always changed and will always change regardless of human activity -- I will point out that we are due to have another ice age. The most likely culprit will be the disruption of the "Atlantic conveyor belt" AKA Atlantic meridional overturning circulation AKA the thermohaline circulation in the Atlantic Ocean. This disruption will likely be triggered by a warming trend. Basically what this means is that both global warming and global cooling predictions could be true.
Indeed, who would be foolish enough to think that science has actually advanced, and become more accurate, in the intervening years?
"I started thinking about the commercials Morse supporters were running," -- Jill Coleman
And remember that those commercials are being partially funded by his buddy Michael "32 oz" Bloomberg from NYC.
"I don't agree with Sen. Morse on every issue but I know he cares about our community and passes laws that make sense." -- Mike Maday
The gun control laws he helped ramrod thru the Senate actually do not make sense. He flat out stated that he ignored and told his fellow legislators to ignore feedback from the community.
All content © Copyright 2013, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation