Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 23:08:39 -0700 From: r.destephens@WORLDNET.ATT.NET (Richard DeStephens) Subject: One last try To: AZRKBA@asu.edu
My response to Representative Bill Brotherton's non-answer....
Says Bill >Dear Ricky:
>the Supreme Court, Congress and various state legislatures and state
courts have >a different view.
They may. But on what do they base these views? Jefferson said that to understand the Constitution we must "carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitutionwas adopted." That last time that was done was US v. Miller 1939, lower courts in Cases and Tot in 1942 and in the present have ignored the words of the Framers. All but US v. Emerson 1999, as you now know.
>I think the Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court understand the law
alittle better than you,Perhaps not. Are they aware of the words of the Framers and Commentators I posted to you? They haven't mentioned them (except for Scalia and Thomas --see Printz-Mack v US, from a couple of years ago.)
>If I were anti-gun as you say, I doubt I would own firearms as I do.
Senator Diane Feinstein owns guns. The Elite always thinks it okay for them. Feinsein even had a carry permit when she was Mayor of San Francisco. She also said in a speech that had she the votes, she would ban them all. It matters little if you own guns. The issue is which laws you wish to pass. Gun registration is a precursor to confiscation. It has no criminological merit.
>Granted I am not an extremist on this issue as you are, but by nostretch of logic does that make me anti-gun.
Last year you fought hard to stop the preemption bill despite our warnings that Tucson wanted to "control handguns" throughout the city and they would use "the CCW database" as a tool to pull over drivers to coerce a search. This was said in front of the Governor last year by the Tucson City Manager (with Michael P. Anthony present).
>but we have to fight the pro-gun extremists too.
You label me an extremist without addressing what is extreme about my postition. You set yourself up as a moderate without describing what is moderate about your positions other than calling for "sensible gun laws" whatever they are.
>You are in a DISTINCT minority, not only among the general public but
among gun owners.I can back my positions up with criminological data and history. Like you, they can't refute it. Most don't even try.
>Reasonable firearms control legislation IS constitutional as determined
by the courts.Article 2 of the Arizona Constitution (Declaration of Rights) states that "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired." Reading Goff, in the Arizona Supreme Court law library, the Arizona Founders voted down any authority of the legislature to enact firearms laws. And yet, we have so many that affect not only criminals but the peaceful as well. The Arizona Supreme Court refuses to hear cases when Goff is brought up. They went so far as reversing their decision to hear a concealed carry case which was going to be presented at UofA law school a few years ago. When they read the brief they changed their collective minds.
>This legislation is also supported overwhelmingly by the public at
large.How many people who support this bill have actually read it? NRA lobbyist is reported in the Arizona Republic as saying that HB 2095 prohibits any local gun control. You and I know this is not true.
>One of the things you would know, if you were legally trained, is we
don't run the country on every old quote of >the founding fathers.
But we do interpret the Constitution on the words of the Framers...
Jefferson wrote: On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debate, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invested against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.
Why is this less valid a guide than Jefferson's...
"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State."
We have the mis-used doctrine of Separation of Church and State based on one sentence in a letter from Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, and you so easily dismiss paragraph after paragraph of the Framers specific words on the subject of the right tokeep and bear arms. You wish to alter a Constitution based on the passing fancy of Supreme Court justices more concerned with the last decision than they are with the Federalist Papers. You want rule of law while ignoring the highest law of the land.
You amaze me. First you say that the Founders didn't support the individual right to bear arms and now you say that it doesn't matter that they support individual rights. It's as if you never covered this in law school. You did cover this in law school didn't ou? This isn't the first time your read the words of the Framers supporting the owning of private firearms capable in use during wartime, is it?
>The Constitution was designed as a flexible framework of government.
The Constitution was designed to impart limited powers to the Federal government. Said Madison, "The powers delegated to the Federal Governement are limited and defined. Those which remain with the States are unlimited and indefinate."
>If you really thought your view of the law and Constitution were
correct I imagine you would file suit against these various pieces of gun >control legislation and get them thrown out by the courts. You don't do that because you know your view isn't accepted by the courts or >the public at large.U.S. v. Emerson, 46 F.Supp.2d 598 (N.D.Tex. 1999). We won the first round in Federal Court. The Government is appealing. Did you even read my last post? I cited the case and posted a paragraph from it. You're in denial. As well, the law review journals from major law schools are nearly 100% in favor of the Standard Model of the individual right to keep and bear arms. The Supreme Court cases I cited from Scot v Sanford to Cruikshank, to Presser, to Miller have the same view. You can ignore it (like the lower federal courts, but they are there and they cite the Framers, a practice that was common before 1940.)
I hope you are more thorough and studied when you are in court, you seem to be suffering in this e-mail exchange with a lay-man.
I'll supply the original post in case you missed it.
Rick
<snip>