Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Husker...
Our trip never got out of Utah. My grandson didn't have as much time as I first thought when we considered making it to the Pacific Northwest. Didn't want to do a 'destination driving' vacation.
Sorry I didn't let you know earlier.
Matey
OK Onebgg NYC...
That first picture after the miner rescue is obviously Everest Camp 4 at 26,000 ft, right?
Actually it looks like somewhere high in the Sierras but I've never been there.
Number 2 looks a lot like Death Valley. Maybe one of the canyons off the west side road or someplace on the west side of the Panamints from Wild Rose. Not much to work with as far a landmarks.
Number 3, the Alpine climber is standing at a high overlook on the East side of Death Valley maybe above the exit of Titus Canyon?. Looks like the road to Scotty's Castle below and the Sand Dunes off in the distance. Am I close?
Number 4 Mono Lake.
Number 5, some 'old guy' in the Southern Arizona desert, the only place where Saguaro's grow naturally.
Onebgg....
44, strong caliber! 50 ain't bad and if you have gray hair like me, sometimes they give you the senior discount without even asking!
"Silver" lining in every cloud!
NYC...
Hate to miss that one, for sure! Act surprised fer cryin' out loud and have a couple cold ones for me. We're at home and gotta take the grandson to the airport Tuesday.
Enjoy, you're only 40 once!
Happy Birthday Bud!
Matey
Nyc, 40's just a number...
...you look to be very physically fit when I saw you.
Number 53 for the Matster! No big deal 'cept for the knee that I pushed a little too far again out in the back country of Escalante. It will heal somewhat, I'm told but eventually orthoscopic surgery is on the horizon.
Matey
Thanks Viv and all..
...me and the the Missus have been married for 34 years now.
Matey
Thanks Bob.
Seems to be OK now.
Matey
All, I get this:
Replies (1) /
Microsoft VBScript runtime error '800a000d'
Type mismatch: 'InitConfig'
/boards/msgutils.inc, line 119
...every time I try to open a message.
Any ideas? All I see is the header.
Matey
All, I get this:
Replies (1) /
Microsoft VBScript runtime error '800a000d'
Type mismatch: 'InitConfig'
/boards/msgutils.inc, line 119
...every time I try to open a message.
Any ideas? All I see is the header.
Matey
Hey all...
Can't access any messages, even those some sent personally.
Don't know what the problem is but thanks to all who wished us a happy anniversary and me a happy birthday.
Just got back from Utah. Spent 3 weeks and did a bunch of Jeepin' in Capitol Reef, Grand Staircase Escalante, Cedar Breaks, Glen Canyon, Pink Coral Sand Dunes, Monument Valley, Bridges National Park and more.
Thanks again. Ton of stuff to do.
Matey
Hey all...
Can't access any messages, even those some sent personally.
Don't know what the problem is but thanks to all who wished us a happy anniversary and me a happy birthday.
Just got back from Utah. Spent 3 weeks and did a bunch of Jeepin' in Capitol Reef, Grand Staircase Escalante, Cedar Breaks, Glen Canyon, Pink Coral Sand Dunes, Monument Valley, Bridges National Park and more.
Thanks again. Ton of stuff to do.
Matey
Mesa mom dies saving others
Daughter, friend survive home invasion; 1 intruder killed
By Senta Scarborough and Patricia Biggs
The Arizona Republic
July 10, 2002
A Mesa woman, bound with duct tape, saved the lives of her teenage daughter and friend by facing off against two armed intruders, fatally shooting one before she was slain in her bedroom.
Elizabeth R. Kuhne, 42, died in her 16-year-old daughter's arms after the home invasion early Monday, said James Wallace, the daughter's boyfriend.
Lorenzo Ruben Gallardo, 24, was arraigned Tuesday on suspicion of first-degree murder, armed robbery, kidnapping and first-degree burglary charges.
Minutes after the home invasion, Gallardo accompanied Ernest Deluna, 16, to Desert Samaritan Medical Center. Michael Dashanne Lutrick, 22, of Mesa drove them in Gallardo's white Dodge pickup truck.
Deluna died shortly afterward from a gunshot wound to the neck. Duct tape was found in his pocket, police said.
A trail of fresh blood leading from the home provided a link to the crime.
"It was a piece of information that helped us track down the suspect," Mesa police Sgt. Mike Goulet said.
Wallace, his face battered, eyes blackened and lips swollen, was emotional Tuesday evening as he gave his account of the events.
He said it began at 2:36 a.m. Monday when two men kicked in the door of the home in the 2600 block of East Lockwood.
"They knew some friends of (the daughter) so they knew we had $500 set aside," said Wallace, 26.
Everyone was asleep when the intruders burst in. Wallace heard Elizabeth Kuhne yelling from her bedroom and men yelling, "Cops! Freeze!"
But when Wallace looked into the hallway, he saw two men wearing ski masks and carrying guns, and knew they weren't police officers.
Wallace locked Kuhne's daughter into a bedroom to protect her. The two intruders pistol-whipped him, knocked him to the ground, kicked him in the head and bound his hands behind his back with duct tape, he said. During the struggle, the mask on one of the men ripped, exposing half of his face.
Wallace heard Kuhne telling the assailants, "Take all my money, take everything."
Wallace said the intruder kicked in the door of the daughter's bedroom and dragged her into her mother's room. The teen gave them money, but they demanded more.
When it seemed the intruders were leaving, the teen started cutting the tape that bound Wallace. The intruders returned to Kuhne's bedroom.
"They seemed to agree that they were going to start killing, with me first," Wallace said.
"Boom! I looked over and saw (Kuhne) with a gun."
At least one of the assailants returned fire, then both men fled.
On Tuesday, North Mesa Justice Court Judge Lester Pearce entered a not guilty plea for Gallardo. He is being held in lieu of $1 million bond.
Gallardo lives with Deluna's sister, Tabitha Glenn, who is his fiancee and mother of his two children.
"I woke up to this. I love my baby brother so much. We are like peas in a pod," said Tabitha, 22, of Tempe. "He had a hard life. I wouldn't wish this on anyone because it hurts so much. I don't know what is going on . . . but that my brother's dead."
According to court records, Gallardo gave several versions of why he went to the hospital and tried to dispose of evidence. He was carrying a large amount of cash when he was arrested; victims reported about the same amount stolen, records show. Blood stains were found in Gallardo's vehicle, records show.
Tempe police arrested the driver, Lutrick, on unrelated charges after he left the hospital. They later released him. Lutrick was interviewed, but no charges have been filed against him.
"We don't know who all of the players are and what role they individually had in it, but we are still investigating," Goulet said.
Lutrick declined to comment.
Wallace returned to the home Tuesday to clean up before Kuhne's husband, Paul, returned from a motorcycle road trip.
He plans to tell Paul Kuhne about his wife's heroics.
"She saved my life and (her daughter's)," Wallace said. "There's no doubt in my mind."
http://www.arizonarepublic.com/arizona/articles/0710murder10.html
No bedwetting liberal here. The 'gunnut' saved two lives sacrificing her own and one of the survivors states that the intruders were going to kill them all.
Forest Fire Marshal Matey here.....
If you smoke, hold on to your butt and let's keep someone 'round that fire at all times.
Half a million acres of beautiful forest will never be the same in my lifetime just a few miles down the road and nearly 500 homes and businesses are gone. Though 1 fire was set as a signal fire (??) at a very bad time, the other was arson. When they merged they became a monster.
Let's be careful out there.
Matey
NYC,
Nope, the smoke is blowing NE. We have clear and pretty skies.
Crying shame the loss of such beautiful woodlands, creatures and dwellings.
Thanks for thinking of me.
Matey
Dolly,
"Barry Goldwater stated in public that there is a dark force working diligently to destroy this nation."
I agree, but I think Barry and I were thinking of someone else.
"You classify me as divisory."
No, I believe you are a victim of those whose goal is to divide us.
"At 76 I'm well aware of the shortness of life, but thanks for reminding me. I'd be interested in your thoughts on a course of action that will guarantee the freedom of our grandchildren."
Quite simple is the answer, Dolly. We must stop the socialization of America and reverse the damage already done. I said the answer was simple but the action maybe far too difficult:
"When the thirteen colonies were still a part of England, Professor
Alexander Tyler wrote about the fall of the Athenian republic over two
thousand years previous to that time:
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only
exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from
the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for
the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with
the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy
followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great
civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed
through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from
spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty
to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to
complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from
dependency back to bondage.
Alexander Tyler"
"cynical? He11 yes I'm cynical. among other things I'm cynical about the flower of our youth being sacrificed in one phony war after the other. I know the media works hard at trying to justify them, and for the most part the sheep believe it all. Many of my generation didn't believe it, but there's not many of us left. The old die off and the young forget, but the ages old agenda never changes."
I know veterans of your era who after witnessing the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers wished they could serve again and stated it publicly with tears in their eyes.
I don't scoff and laugh at you, William.
Matey
Dolly, don't let...
the paranoia destroy ya.
All it took was for one of the terrorists to open the neck of a stewardess and left the blood spray over several rows of passengers and NO ONE was going to or did anything. It was an unprecedented act that I truly believe will never happen again. The people and the crew just won't allow it.
As for the other stuff, don't let cynicism eat away your years of life. You play into the hands of those who wish to limit our freedom and destroy liberty by breaking a united people into distrustful factions.
Life is too short William, don't let it slip away in such suspicion and unhappiness.
Your friend,
Matey
Guess I'll head....
...back over to the RB Swamp.
This one isn't much different anymore and that one is real cordial right now.
Matey
Triggering new debate over guns
Bush policy switch finally reconciles the government to the right to bear arms
Sunday, June 16, 2002
By DON B. KATES
CIVIL LIBERTIES LAWYER
The overwhelming consensus among historians and law professors is that the Second Amendment guarantees that every responsible, law-abiding adult may have guns. It is no coincidence that the few scholars who disagree all are gun-control advocates. In contrast, endorsers of the individual-right view include not only gun-control opponents, but also numerous scholars who support gun control yet honestly acknowledge the overwhelming historical evidence.
That evidence starts with the words "right of the people" to keep and bear arms. The Bill of Rights passed as one document in 1789: Every provision having that wording guarantees a right to individuals.
To deny the Second Amendment is such a right requires assuming that when the First Amendment says "right of the people," it means a genuine right, but 16 words later, it means a "states' right" or a meaningless "collective right" -- but 26 words later in the Fourth Amendment, it refers to a genuine right again, as it also does in the Ninth and 10th amendments.
The Second Amendment also mentions "militia," a concept that, under colonial and state laws, meant every home's having a gun and every military-age male's mustering with it for militia duty.
Thus the Second Amendment's guarantee of individuals' rights to arms simultaneously guaranteed the arms of the militia, which were the arms of its individual members.
Moreover, the rule today (and in the 18th century) is that statement-of-purpose clauses do not limit the broad language of a rights guarantee. Eighteenth-century state constitutional right guarantees often had purpose clauses, but none is interpreted to limit the right involved.
James Madison, who wrote the Bill of Rights, envisioned them not as appended to the Constitution (as Congress actually did), but rather as inserted into the pertinent part of the Constitution. The Second Amendment he intended to insert not into the militia clauses (article 1, section 8, clauses 15 and 16) but into the personal-rights clauses (section 9), along with freedom of speech, press, assembly, etc.
The Founding Fathers' ideas would group them today with the National Rifle Association's most militant members. "One loves to possess arms," Thomas Jefferson wrote George Washington on June 19, 1796. James Madison assured his fellow countrymen they need not fear their government "because [you have] the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation."
All other founders who discussed guns agreed. If any disagreed, writes professor William Van Alstyne, former member of the national board of the American Civil Liberties Union and one of the great figures in modern American constitutional law, "it remains one of the most closely guarded secrets of the eighteenth century, for no known writing from the period" says so.
Before the modern gun-control debate, no one denied that the amendment guarantees an individual right. In a 183-page review of all 19th-century references, criminologist David Kopel found not one denial. A typical explanation was that which a great Supreme Court justice offered in an 1834 book on the Constitution: "One of the ordinary modes by which tyrants accomplish their purpose without resistance is by disarming the people and making it an offense to keep arms."
Our founders were steeped in the belief of classical political philosophy that only an armed people could maintain their liberty.
From Locke and Montesquieu back to the ancient Greeks and Romans, liberal philosophers had repeated Aristotle's dicta that basic to tyrants is "mistrust of the people; hence they deprive them of arms" and that confiscation of the Athenians' arms led to the tyrannies of the Pisistratids and the Thirty.
Two fallacious arguments against the Second Amendment deserve mention.
First, during the Revolution, Tories were sometimes in some places denied the right to arms.
But if that is deemed to invalidate the constitutional right to arms, it proves entirely too much. For some Tories were also imprisoned, exiled and even executed for their beliefs (without trial).
No one would suggest that such examples prove that the First, Fourth and Fifth amendments do not guarantee freedom of speech, the rights to due process of law and jury trial, etc. If wartime denials of civil liberties are deemed the measure of our Bill of Rights, we have no civil liberties.
Second, it is argued that the right should not apply to modern small arms, which are supposedly so much deadlier than 18th-century guns. But the fact is that 18th-century firearms were far more deadly, given the difference in medical care.
Imagine that in 1789 someone fired a double-barreled shotgun into a crowded area. Fifty to 60 people would have been struck and at least 90 percent would have died. Now imagine that a modern crowd just stands there while someone fires four magazines from a 15-shot semiautomatic pistol into them. Assuming the same number of people are hit, fewer than 10 would die while the rest would recover.
Finally, if the Second Amendment is outmoded, it should be repealed, not evaded. Harvard law professors Alan Dershowitz and Laurence Tribe, who loathe guns, urge repeal, but emphasize that until that occurs, the amendment must be observed.
Incidentally, I have been denounced by the NRA for asserting the amendment allows many gun controls so long as the right of law-abiding, responsible adults to have guns is observed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don B. Kates of Battle Ground is a retired constitutional law professor. He wrote the leading law review article on the Second Amendment and the treatise on it in the Encyclopedia of the American Constitution.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/74350_focus16pro.shtml
The good folks are.....
cordial, civil, and positive..............
.........the others are typical left-wing whiners.
Back to retirement.
Matey
Of course you aren't........
"I'm not going to get in a flame war with you. I'm not that childish."
Followed by:
"Go back to the bar, and have a few drinks."
Are these types predictable, or what?
Life is too good and too short to be such a negative type. Not me, mister!
Matey
Hunting a bad prospect in AZ right now!
Prescott National Forest, Coconino and others closed due to extreme fire hazard. Wildlife coming into town because of drought. Elk warnings in the Flagstaff area and many more car/elk encounters. Around here, mule deer, javalina and antelope are seen in town and on the highways.
Come on monsoons!
Matey
Trky,
I've been to a Cup race at Charlotte. Great track but bad parking and access. They were building a new road when I was there, maybe it has helped.
Guess I was spoiled by California Raceway.
Enjoy!
Matey
Your child...
I hope both of mine far outlive me.
When my son was in the Marine Corps during the Gulf War, I tried to prepare myself for the worst. I couldn't, you can't, not when it's your flesh and blood. I took comfort in knowing that my son wanted to serve whether it was peacetime or war and that there is a God.
He came home and was never in the harms way that other's sons were. Was he lucky or were prayers answered? I guess the real beauty is we don't really know so we can choose what we believe and no one can convince us otherwise.
Some will argue that it was just dumb luck my boy wasn't hurt and that physical death is the end. I can't imagine the energy of the mind, the thoughts, the emotions, the memories, all that was a person's life just ceases into black nothingness at physical death. I guess that's why I get up everyday and try to absorb the sunrise, the blue sky every cloud, every bird, every minute of life and not let the pessimists drag me down with them.
I guess maybe that's why they're pessimists. Their feeling is 'life's a bitch and then you die.' I couldn't live like that; I wouldn't want to.
Hey! What a beauty of a sunrise! Later all!
NeedAnotherCupMate
Kiabab, I hope...
you too, have been comforted by some form of faith. I know some call faith a weakness, a fairy tale but for many there is hope that life continues after the physical body ceases and the ultimate reunion.
I'm not a Bible-slapper or even a regular church goer, but I do have my faith. It helped with the recent passing of my and my wife's fathers.
Bless you.
Matey
I'm sorry, Judd....
....nothing is worse than a child's death, nothing more painful than a young life cut short.
Those of us with some form of faith find comfort in believing that Tyler's life didn't really end. I don't know how a nonbeliever copes and don't want to find out.
take care, bud.
Matey
BTW there is only ONE reason for...
..the 'reasonable' registration of firearms in America.
As a result of Haynes v. US, 390 U.S. 85 (1968, the heart of the liberal Warren SC), a criminal cannot be convicted for failure to register a firearm because to do so would represent a violation of the criminal's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
To quote the decision...
"...A proper claim of the privilege against self-incrimination provides a full defense to prosecutions either for failure to register under sec. 5841 or for possession of an unregistered firearm under sec. 5851..."
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/haynes_v_us.txt
So the inescapable reason for forcing law abiding citizens to register their forearms is NOT to reduce crime, criminals are exempt and cannot even face the same penalty as a law abider who didn't register his gun. No, the reason has been played out in country after country and that is for future confiscation.
Gun control is not nor has it ever been about reducing crime and saving lives. It's about CONTROL.
The anti-gunners plod on.....
Now they are the 'real' patriots speaking for the founders and rewriting history, yet again:
Second Amendment is collective
By RICHARD N. JOHNSON
Special to the Courier
A letter from the grave:
Why are you drawing artificial lines in the miry quicksand of Constitutional irrationality with your erstwhile defense of our carefully worded Second Amendment?
Can you not plainly read our clearly worded and concise erudition that specifically states, “ ... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?” We hear reports that some modern Americans are opposed to their neighbors constructing nuclear bombs in the privacy of their own garages.
Other rumors claim that some are opposed to the wealthy and elite of modern American society arming their private Lear Jets with heat-seeking missiles and nuclear weapons. And unbelievable as it may sound, we have even heard that some modern citizens are plotting to prevent future American corporations and individuals of wealth and esteem from arming privately-owned satellites with space-based laser and other as yet to be invented weaponry of necessary defense.
Have you lost all sense of patriotism and common decency?
How can we expect communistic liberal Democrats to listen when from one side of the contradicting claptrap, you claim that regulating the sale of guns at circus tents (talk about your animal rights) is against our Second Amendment while from the other side, you go right on defending the Republican Party’s ongoing support of similar restrictions regarding the advanced weaponry noted above?
Is not your Constitutional right to own all manner of machine-gun and bazooka-type arms, which were also not invented when we conceived our amendment, no different than your same right to arm private aircraft with nuclear bombs or at the very least, large conventional bombs? And what about your Constitutional right to manufacture anthrax and arm yourselves with toxic nerve gas?
Where is the sagacity of common sense and fair play? Since there are currently no publicly held nuclear weaponry corporations (at least as far as we know), we suspect that your sympathy in reality lies with the profits of gun manufacturers and the enhancement of your own bulging coffers at the expense of logical and sane weapons regulation. Is this not what your contradicting and uncompromising agenda is really all about?
Is not your whole argument based on drawing your own lines for biased purposes of your own self-interest without regard to what our Second Amendment actually says? Do you not think there may have been a good reason, however foreign it may seem to you Constitutional Neanderthals of the 21st Century, why we qualified our amendment with the rationality of a “well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state …”?
Have you even bothered to notice that the entire constitutional document we spent so much time and consideration painstakingly crafting was duly prefaced with “ ... in order to insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, provide for the general welfare ...”?
Do you not think we might consider it rather naïve to suppose that the modern-day American population can somehow be assured of domestic tranquility while criminals are allowed to possess and control an unlimited personal arsenal without any necessary background checks?
In closing, we have taken sad notice of late that our carefully defined First Amendment is being constantly and consistently violated by a very great many modern American county and city ordinances and in every American publicly supported classroom.
We unanimously would like to know why you who are so riled up over the Second Amendment are not out in the streets screaming about such rampant abuse of our First Amendment? And what about those God-awful taxes you currently allow without raising an eyebrow, even supporting the lying Republican hypocrites who raised them?
Do you not know that we revolted over a 3 percent taxation issue? Talk about your one-trick ponies ... Would it not be better for We The People of The United States if John Wayne, that big ape from the monkey planet movies, and the rest of your self-serving and contradicting butts would simply ride off into your superficial polluted sunset and never return to burden the minds and otherwise endanger the general welfare of our hard-working and decent common folk?
Signed,
John Hancock
On behalf of Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine and the Sons and Daughters of the American Revolution.
(Richard N. Johnson is a local Prescott human and civil rights activist and author; e-mail him at Richard@aberdeenfoundation.org)
http://www.communitypapers.com/dailycourier/myarticles.asp?P=591084&S=400&PubID=8802&EC=...
Maybe a few civil letters to the editor and a few civil emails wouldn't hurt. We're on a roll so let's keep public opinion positive of American gun ownership.
To write to this paper:
editorial@prescottaz.com
Matey
Claremont's Dr. Tim Wheeler on 60 Minutes
On Sunday May 12, Dr. Timothy Wheeler will appear on CBS'
60 Minutes to discuss the controversial practice of
physicians questioning patients about gun ownership. Check
your local listings for the exact air time.
Dr. Wheeler, a southern California surgeon, is the director
of Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership (DRGO), a project
of the Claremont Institute launched in 1994. With more
than 1,300 physician-members nationwide, DRGO supports the
safe and lawful use of firearms. One of its major projects
is countering the bad science and ideological bias behind
the attempt to treat guns as a "disease" that threatens
public health--the topic of the 60 Minutes segment.
For more information on DRGO, please visit
http://www.claremont.org/1_drgo.cfm.
Thank ya GW!
http://latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-050802guns.story
U.S. Backs a Right to Bear Arms
Law: The Justice Department's stance reverses six decades of federal policy.
Matey
Viv, your sister and you...
are in my thoughts and prayers.
Take care,
Matey
If you pass enough laws...
you can virtually make anyone a 'criminal'.
Bob, spent 18 months going through hell arrested for carrying without a permit while facing off armed gang members in occupied Kalifornia.
Even with the penal code showing I was legal, the local DA wanted to make an example of me:
"(j) (1) Nothing in this section is intended to preclude the
carrying of any loaded firearm, under circumstances where it would
otherwise be lawful, by a person who reasonably believes that the
person or property of himself or herself or of another is in
immediate, grave danger and that the carrying of the weapon is
necessary for the preservation of that person or property. As used
in this subdivision, "immediate" means the brief interval before and
after the local law enforcement agency, when reasonably possible, has
been notified of the danger and before the arrival of its
assistance." CA PC 12031
After 18 months and the loss of my revolver, all charges were dropped. No charges, no crime. Yes, you can be aquitted by a jury, but so was O.J. It's best to have charges dropped if possible.
Good luck,
Matey
Actually Bob...
it seems the more restrictions there are, the more law breaking there is.
Matey
Sorry to hear that Viv....
it's a shame that good people get knocked down .... but then GOOD people always get back up again.
Best of luck,
Matey
As for an air rifle....
I know that in occupied Kalifornia, you can face the same penalty for firing an air gun in a municipality as a firearm.
Such is the hysteria attached to our RKBA in a liberal run state.
Matey
The Meaning of the Words in the Second Amendment
Summary
Erroneous interpretations of the words in the Second Amendment occur from both sides of the debate. The meaning of the words "militia," "well regulated," "the people," "to keep and bear," and "arms," are discussed.
The Second Amendment:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
A Militia
The word "militia" has several meanings. It can be a body of citizens (no longer exclusively male) enrolled for military service where full time duty is required only in emergencies. The term also refers to the eligible pool of citizens callable into military service. The federal government can use the militia for the following purposes as stated in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution:
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
Is today's National Guard the militia? It is a part of the well regulated militia, and as mentioned in GunCite's, The Original Intent and Purpose of the Second Amendment, it was not the intent of the framers to restrict the right to keep arms to a militia let alone a well regulated one.
(Once a member of the National Guard is ordered into active military service of the United States, that member is no longer under the command of a State Guard unit. See the Supreme Court case Perpich v. Department of Defense, 496 U.S. 334 (1990) for a brief but good explanation of the evolution of the National Guard statutes.)
For a definition of today's militia as defined in the United States Code, click here.
A militia is always subject to federal, state, or local government control. A "private" militia or army not under government control could be considered illegal and in rebellion, and as a result subject to harsh punishment. (See Macnutt, Karen L., Militias, Women and Guns Magazine, March, 1995.)
Some argue that since the militias are "owned," or at the disposal of the states, that the states are free to disarm their militia if they so choose, and therefore of course no individual right to keep arms exists. The Militia is not "owned" by anybody, rather they are controlled, organized, et. cetera, by governments. The federal government as well as the states have no legitimate power to disarm the people from which militias are organized. Unfortunately, few jurists today hold this view. (See Reynolds, Glen Harlan, A Critical Guide to the Second Amendment, 62 Tenn. L. Rev. 461-511 [1995].)
A brief summary of early U.S. militia history.
Well Regulated
Of all the words in the Second Amendment, the word "regulated" probably causes the most confusion. The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word "regulate," which were all in use during the Colonial period (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989):
1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.
2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.
3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.
4) To put in good order.
The first definition, to control by law in this case, was already provided for in the Constitution. It would have been unnecessary to repeat the need for that kind of regulation. For reference here is the passage from Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, granting the federal government the power to regulate the militia:
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Some in their enthusiasm to belong to a well regulated militia have attempted to explain well regulated by using the definition "adjust so as to ensure accuracy." A regulated rifle is one that is sighted-in. However well regulated modifies militia, not arms. This definition is clearly inappropriate.
That leaves us with "to adjust to some standard..." or "to put in good order." Let's let Alexander Hamilton explain what is meant by well regulated in Federalist Paper No. 29:
The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
--- See The Federalist Papers, No. 29.
"To put in good order" is the correct interpretation of well regulated, signifying a well disciplined, trained and functioning militia.
Here is a quote from the Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 which also conveys the meaning of well regulated:
Resolved , That this appointment be conferred on experienced and vigilant general officers, who are acquainted with whatever relates to the general economy, manoeuvres and discipline of a well regulated army.
--- Saturday, December 13, 1777.
Finally, note the Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, (1989) defining regulated in 1690 to have meant "properly disciplined" when describing soldiers:
[obsolete sense]
b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare-1.
1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.
The People
This paragraph shouldn't be necessary. That one must explain why the "people" in the Second Amendment means individuals, rather than the state or the people "collectively," is a sad commentary on the intellectual honesty of our day. Where are the quotes from the founders indicating that the right to keep and bear arms is solely a right belonging to the state? None have yet to be brought forth.
The first eight amendments were meant to preserve specifically named individual rights. (The Ninth Amendment was meant to insure that no one would argue that those first eight were the only individual rights protected from infringment.) The people are mentioned throughout the Bill of Rights. Were the Founding Fathers so careless in constructing a legal document that they would use the word "people" when they meant the "state?" It is unlikely. Evidence of an individual right to keep and bear arms is presented throughout the Second Amendment section of GunCite, and will not be repeated here. However, additional evidence follows, showing that the "people" means the people as individuals (everyone) rather than some amorphous body or the state.
The whole of that Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals...t establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of.
---Albert Gallatin to Alexander Addison, Oct 7, 1789, MS. in N.Y. Hist. Soc.-A.G. Papers, 2. (Source: Halbrook, Stephen, That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right, University of New Mexico Press, 1984, p. 225)
The Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights begins:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."
The use of "people" in the Fourth Amendment obviously indicates an individual right. The Tenth Amendment reads:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The Tenth Amendment above, distinguishes between the states and the people.
One of James Madison's proposed amendments:
"The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable."
Would anybody in their right mind suggest Madison proposed a collective right to speak, write, or publish their thoughts?
Looking at other declarations of rights from the time clearly shows that "the people," in other words everyone, were entitled to certain rights (freemen in those days).
For example, Article XIII of Pennsylvania's Declaration of Rights states:
"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state..."
Article XII from the same declaration says:
"That the people have a right to freedom of speech, and of writing, and publishing their sentiments; therefore the freedom of the press ought not to be restrained."
In both of the above examples, "the people" means each person. Would anyone seriously suggest that Article XII protects only a "collective right," or that the people's freedom of speech and writing is limited to those who posses a printing press or to works appearing in the news media?
Let's look at Virginia's proposed Declaration of Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution. From the preamble:
"That there be a Declaration or Bill of Rights asserting and securing from encroachment the essential and unalienable Rights of the People in some such manner as the following;"
The Seventeenth article states:
"That the people have a right to keep and bear arms..."
The Eleventh article:
"That in controversies respecting property, and in suits between man and man, the ancient trial by Jury is one of the greatest Securities to the rights of the people, and ought to remain sacred and inviolable."
Was the right to trial by jury meant to be a "collective right?" Of course not; it applied to the people, each and every one of them. Article Sixteen:
"That the people have a right to freedom of speech, and of writing and publishing their Sentiments; but the freedom of the press is one of the greatest bulwarks of liberty and ought not to be violated."
The above article appears right before the article mentioning the "right of the people to keep and bear arms." Does the meaning of "the people" suddenly transform from an individual right of speech to a "collective right" to keep and bear arms?
Comparing the Fourteenth article from Virginia's Declaration of Rights to the Fourth Amendment in the Bill of Rights shows that Madison, who was from Virginia, substituted "the people" for "every freeman."
"That every freeman has a right to be secure from all unreasonable searches and seizures..." (Fourteenth article)
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..." (Fourth Amendment)
Yet, Yale law professor Akhil Amar claims, "when the Constitution speaks of 'the people' rather than 'persons,' the collective connotation is primary" (Second Thoughts: What the right to bear arms really means). Amar's theory unravels when looking at all of the evidence. He tries to reconcile a portion of it writing "The Fourth Amendment is trickier... And these words obviously focus on the private domain, protecting individuals in their private homes more than in the public square. Why, then, did the Fourth use the words 'the people' at all? Probably to highlight the role that jurors--acting collectively and representing the electorate--would play in deciding which searches were reasonable and how much to punish government officials who searched or seized improperly."
Amar's reasoning might sound plausible in today's context, however he fails to provide an appropriate example. In 1789 jurors did not issue warrants or determine whether a search was reasonable and they could not "punish government officials who searched or seized improperly." There was no method of suing the government in 1789 for damages resulting from the violation of civil rights. Also Amar fails to explain Madison's draft amendment protecting the people's right to speak and write, mentioned above.
Some individual rights were protected for collective purposes, the Second Amendment being one of them, however this doesn't tranform the individual right into a "collective right" belonging to the states or the militia.
One final example from Roger Sherman's draft bill of rights, article 2 (at 983), (Sherman was a Founder, Senator, and lawyer):
"The people have certain natural rights which are retained by them when they enter into Society, such are the rights of Conscience in matters of religion; of acquiring property and of pursuing happiness & Safety; of Speaking, writing and publishing their Sentiments with decency and freedom; of peaceably assembling to consult their common good, and of applying Government by petition or remonstrance for redress of grievances. Of these rights therefore they Shall not be deprived by the Government of the united states."
Lastly, even the Supreme Court agrees on the meaning of "the people" as used in the Bill of Rights (Adamson v. California, 1947).
"The reasoning that leads to those conclusions starts with the unquestioned premise that the Bill of Rights, when adopted, was for the protection of the individual against the federal government..."
And the dissent agrees:
"The first 10 amendments were proposed and adopted largely because of fear that Government might unduly interfere with prized individual liberties."
To Keep and Bear
To "keep" simply meant the people were allowed to keep their own arms for self-defense or for militia use. "To bear arms" is thought by some to apply only in a military context. However, even at the time of the founders this wasn't true. For example in 1776, Article XIII of Pennsylvania's Declaration of Rights stated: "That the people have a right to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State."
For a differing view of the meaning of "bearing arms" see Guncite's "Is there Contrary Evidence?".
Arms
In Colonial times "arms" meant weapons that could be carried. This included knives, swords, rifles and pistols. Dictionaries of the time had a separate definition for "ordinance" (as it was spelled then) meaning cannon. Any hand held, non-ordnance type weapons, are theoretically constitutionally protected. Obviously nuclear weapons, tanks, rockets, fighter planes, and submarines are not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html
Original Intent and Purpose of the Second Amendment
Summary
The original intent and purpose of the Second Amendment was to preserve and guarantee, not grant the pre-existing right of individuals, to keep and bear arms. Although the amendment emphasizes the need for a militia, membership in any militia let alone a well regulated one, is not required to exercise the right to keep and bear arms.
Introduction
The Second Amendment:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
One does not have to belong to a well regulated militia in order to have the right to keep and bear arms. The militia clause is merely one, and not the only, rationale for preserving the right. The Founders were expressing a preference for a militia over a standing army. Even if today's well regulated militia were the National Guard, the Second Amendment still protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.
There is no evidence from the writings of the Founding Fathers, early American legal commentators, or pre-twentieth century Supreme Court decisions, indicating that the Second Amendment applied only to members of a well regulated militia or that the sole purpose of this amendment was to preserve the right of states to keep their militias.
Evidence of an Individual Right
In his popular edition of Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1803), St. George Tucker, a lawyer, Revolutionary War militia officer, legal scholar, and later a U.S. District Court judge, wrote of the Second Amendment:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government.
In the appendix to the Commentaries, Tucker elaborates further:
This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty... The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.
Tucker's remarks are solid evidence that the militia clause was not the sole reason for preserving the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Tucker specifically mentions self-defense. This indicates two things: The scope of the right to keep and bear arms was not restricted to military purposes or the common defense (just such a provision was rejected by the Senate), and that "the people" means individuals, not a collective entity, and not a state.
(William Blackstone was an English jurist who published Commentaries on the Laws of England, in four volumes between 1765 and 1769. Blackstone is credited with laying the foundation of modern English law and certainly influenced the thinking of the American Founders.)
In the Federalist Papers, No. 29, Alexander Hamilton clearly states membership in a well regulated militia is not required for the right to keep arms:
What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government is impossible to be foreseen...The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution... Little more can reasonably be aimed at with the respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped ; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.
---The Federalist Papers, No. 29.
After James Madison's Bill of Rights was submitted to Congress, Tench Coxe (see also: Tench Coxe and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, 1787-1823) published his "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution," in the Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 He asserts that it's the people (as individuals) with arms, who serve as the ultimate check on government:
As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.
"Coxe's defense of the amendments was widely reprinted. A search of the literature of the time reveals that no writer disputed or contradicted Coxe's analysis that what became the Second Amendment protected the right of the people to keep and bear "their private arms." The only dispute was over whether a bill of rights was even necessary to protect such fundamental rights." (Halbrook, Stephen P. "The Right of the People or the Power of the State Bearing Arms, Arming Militias, and the Second Amendment". Originally published as 26 Val. U. L.Rev. 131-207, 1991).
Earlier, in The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788, while the states were considering ratification of the Constitution, Tench Coxe wrote:
Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American...The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
William Rawle's "A View of the Constitution of the United States of America" (1829), was adopted as a constitutional law textbook at West Point and other institutions. In Chapter 10 he describes the scope of the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms:
The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.
This is another quote where it is obvious that "the people" means individuals since Rawle writes neither the states nor the national government has legitimate authority to disarm its citizens.
(In 1791 William Rawle was appointed as a United States Attorney for Pennsylvania by President George Washington, a post he held for more than eight years. He was also George Washington's candidate for the nation's first attorney general, but Rawle declined the appointment.)
A lengthier quote from Rawle, and more quotes from St. George Tucker are presented in the quotes from commentators section.
More quotes from the Founding Fathers.
The Early Supreme Court
There were only three Second Amendment related Supreme Court cases in the 19th Century. Here is a quote from the case of Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886) :
It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States, and in view of this prerogative of the general government...the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question [the Second Amendment] out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government.
At the time of this decision the entire Bill of Rights was considered inapplicable to the states. It served as a limitation upon only the federal government (Barron v. Baltimore, 1833). Regardless of this limitation, the Presser court wrote that the right to keep and bear arms existed for "all citizens capable of bearing arms" and the states could not infringe upon this right.
More information regarding Supreme Court cases.
Individual Rights and the Militia
The militia clause was never meant to limit the right to keep and bear arms. Rather it was the "chief political reason for guaranteeing the right against governmental infringement. Keeping and bearing arms would be protected for all lawful purposes, but self-defense, hunting, shooting at the mark (i.e., target shooting), and other nonpolitical purposes had no place in a federal Constitution which delegated no power to regulate these activities. Since Congress could raise and support armies, the superiority of the militia in securing a "free" country must be declared." See Halbrook, Stephen P. "The Right of the People or the Power of the State Bearing Arms, Arming Militias, and the Second Amendment". Originally published as 26 Val. U. L.Rev. 131-207, 1991).
The following is excerpted from To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right, Joyce Lee Malcom, Harvard University Press, 1994:
The Second Amendment was meant to accomplish two distinct goals, each perceived as crucial to the maintenance of liberty: First, it was meant to guarantee the individual's right to have arms for self-defense and self-preservation. Such an individual right was a legacy of the English Bill of Rights. This is also plain from American colonial practice, the debates over the Constitution, and state proposals for what was to become the Second Amendment. In keeping with colonial precedent, the American article broadened the English protection. English restrictions had limited the right to have arms to Protestants and made the type and quantity of such weapons dependent upon what was deemed "suitable" to a person's "condition." The English also included the proviso that the right to have arms was to be "as allowed by law". Americans swept aside these limitations and forbade any "infringement" upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
These privately owned arms were meant to serve a larger purpose as well, albeit the American framers of the Second Amendment, like their English predecessors, rejected language linking their right to "the common defense". When, as Blackstone phrased it, "the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression," those private weapons would afford the people the means to vindicate their liberties.
The second and related objective concerned the militia, and it is the coupling of these two objectives that has caused the most confusion. The customary American militia necessitated an armed public, and Madison's original version of the amendment, as well as those suggested by the states, described the militia as either "composed of" or "including" the body of the people. A select militia was regarded as little better than a standing army. The argument that today's National Guard, members of a select militia, would constitute the only persons entitled to keep and bear arms has no historical foundation. Indeed, it would seem redundant to specify that members of a militia had the right to be armed. A militia could scarcely function otherwise. But the argument that this constitutional right to have weapons was exclusively for members of a militia falters on another ground. The House committee eliminated the stipulation that the militia be "well-armed," and the Senate, in what became the final version of the amendment, eliminated the description of the militia as composed of the "body of the people." These changes left open the possibility of a poorly armed and narrowly based militia that many Americans feared might be the result of federal control. Yet the amendment guaranteed that the right of " the people" to have arms not be infringed. Whatever the future composition of the militia, therefore, however well or ill armed, was not crucial because the people's right to have weapons was to be sacrosanct. As was the case in the English tradition, the arms in the hands of the people, not the militia, are relied upon "to restrain the violence of oppression"
The Constitution gave to the federal government broad authority over state militia. Was the Second Amendment meant to placate states fearful about this loss of control? In fact not one of the ninety-seven distinct amendments proposed by state ratifying conventions asked for a return of any control that had been allocated to the federal government over the militia. Sherman's [Roger Sherman a representative of Connecticut] proposal that some power be returned to the states was rejected by the drafting committee. In any event, the Second Amendment does nothing to alter the situation. Indeed, that was precisely the complaint of the anti-Federalist Centinel in a discussion of the House version of the arms article. The Centinel found that "the absolute command vested by other sections in Congress over the militia, are [sic] not in the least abridged by this amendment." Had the intent been to reapportion this power some diminution of federal control would have been mandated. None was.
... George Mason had attempted to add... a proviso during the convention when he moved to preface the clause granting Congress authority to organize, arm, and discipline the militia with the words "And that the liberties of the people may be better secured against the danger of standing armies in time of peace." A strong statement of preference for a militia must have seemed more tactful than an expression of distrust of the army. The Second Amendment, therefore, stated that it was the militia, not the army, that was necessary to the security of a free state. The reference to a "well regulated" militia was meant to encourage the federal government to keep the militia in good order.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html
NYC,
Fished some of them trout last November near Pinetop. Good eating! I understand they stock Lynx Lake just down the road a piece with bass and trout. Next time you're in the area, bring your pole and l'il NYC's too. Nothing better than watching a little guy snag a fish!
She ain't a dingo, she's a vizsla ....... the pharaoh’s dog!
Matey
NYC,
...are you talking about up on the Rim?
We saw a lake or two that had a sign stating that it was stocked regularly with trout by the forestry service, but I don't believe we saw a trout farm. Do you know what it is near?
How's the little man and Mrs. NYC? Did you get that little boy another dog? You never replace a faithful friend but you get another one. A boy NEEDS a dog.
Matey
War is a terrible thing .....
...men resort to when it presents the only way for survival of a people or a way of life, or for the greed of political gain. Powerful men wage war, ordinary men fight those wars and innocent people are hurt on both sides by war. It is inescapable.
The sad accident involving our friend, Canada, is the unfortunate result of the stress ordinary men deal with while engaged in conflict. If you've been fortunate to never have been in such a position, be sure to ask a special blessing for those who died and were hurt, for the pilot and for all ordinary people placed in harms way to protect us and our way of life from those who would destroy us.
Matey
Yesterday...
took a drive up 'Bloody Basin' road to Agua Fria National Monument. Rough road goes South East from I-17 North of Phoenix for about 28 miles into some very pretty and wild country. Stopped at an old copper mining works and you could still pick up 'peacock' copper ore with bright green traces in them. At the end of that road was Cave Creek road that goes South another 28 miles to pavement in Cave Creek.
Another beauty of a day and a great time.
Matey