Homestead mailing list

[clhw AT infoave.net (clhw)]

If I understand it correctly, the case being heard before the Supreme Court
has nothing to do with whether or not a state can have a militia. It is
whether the Second Amendment pertains to individual ownership and bearing
of arms or whether that means the states can regulate who can or cannot own
and bear arms. The argument has been used in several places, including, I
believe, Washington, DC., that the Second means the states and/or
municipalities can determine that individuals except for certain ones like
law enforcement cannot have guns. The lawyers for the gun control laws
argue that the Second means the state can maintain an armed militia (like
the National Guard or State Police) but the individual does not have the
right to own or bear arms.

Washington, DC has banned private ownership of handguns. At this point, the
transcripts of the Supremes' questionings indicate that the Nine are
inclined to say that the Second Amendment is supporting individual
ownership and bearing of arms and that the city and/or state cannot abridge
that right.

>Well, we know a state's right to form a militia isn't going away in any of
>our lifetimes...what would happen to each state's National Guard? I'm not
>sure
>what the formation of a 'militia' means - protection of locals from local bad
> guys? From foreign bad guys? From a Shadow Government gone bad (or badder)?
>Who  else would the Governator call upon, in time of disaster, to prove that
>he's  still in charge?
>
>If the Second Amendment applies to individual rights, then there's no
>problem. If it doesn't, then there will certainly be a whole new Grey
>Panther-type
>underground movement underway - little ole grey-haired ladies -  like myself 
>-
>who are packin'! Not a movement underway, I guess, maybe
>just...continuing...Gene, I believe, put it very well the other day - if I
>may  paraphrase - "I
>will be one of them".

snip

>Sandy
>Mid-Mojave