tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7547107171993607996.post1138930772067803514..comments2023-10-10T08:44:27.567-07:00Comments on Brett's Constitution: Uh... yes, Chuck, twenty-seven words COULD be clearer...Bretthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17817916189480737690noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7547107171993607996.post-10573737239720867052008-03-26T10:45:00.000-07:002008-03-26T10:45:00.000-07:00David,Nicely put.I am in the process of reading yo...David,<BR/><BR/>Nicely put.<BR/><BR/>I am in the process of reading your book mentioned above as well as the previous one, "The Origins of the Second Amanedment: ..."<BR/><BR/>Although I've not finished reading them, I've read enough to realize how far off track most people are when commenting on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for doing such a good job on both books.Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17951096147486480159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7547107171993607996.post-70846467667292516212008-03-26T10:21:00.000-07:002008-03-26T10:21:00.000-07:00Perhaps Chuck Norris has actually studied the hist...Perhaps Chuck Norris has actually studied the historical information that is available about the development of the Second Amendment. For those who think that not much is known, try reading this History News Network article, which is severely critical of the historical material presented to the Supreme Court in a pro-DC handgun ban amicus filed by fifteen professional academic historians and legal scholars:<BR/>http://hnn.us/articles/47238.html<BR/><BR/>The 27 words are only incomprehensible for those who insist on keeping their heads stuck in the sand. In <I>The Founders' View of the Right to Bear Arms</I>, which was just published in December, the two clauses of the Second Amendment are traced back to their original AMERICAN authors and uses. (I emphasize American to indicate that the constant mention of Scotland and the English Bill of Rights by gun control advocates are diversionary and unhelpful for understanding American bills of rights language) The original two clause version of the Second Amendment had two equal declaratory clauses. These were taken from Mason Triads that were present in EVERY one of the state bill of rights then extant (there were 8 total). Half of those had well regulated militia language as the lead Mason Triad clause, the other half had the people's right to bear arms language as the leading clause of the Triad. Mason Triads basically asserted the supremacy of the civil over the military, or civil control of the military.<BR/><BR/>Thus, the two clauses of the Second Amendment as proposed by George Mason in his 1788 Bill of Rights are equal and duplicatory. I trace down why this is so, not only for the Second Amendment original, but also for freedom of the press as proposed in Mason's model Bill of Rights. Mason's Bill of Rights proposal is what Madison promised to support in order to obtain the ratification vote in Virginia's Convention. It was Madison who introduced the dependent nature of what is now the first clause of the Second Amendment and this was done because he made the operative clause restrictive in nature rather than merely declaratory like Mason's original. Also, note that Mason's Bill of Rights was the model for all four of the last ratifying conventions, every one of which defined the militia as the body of the people.<BR/><BR/>What both forms of the state bills of rights protected, obviously against state government violation, was an armed civilian population. They simply did it in different language. They were all understood as protecting a fundamental right. Mason, who first used well regulated militia language in an American Bill of Rights, indicated that his original 1776 Virginia Bill of Rights well regulated militia provision was intended as a limit on the state legislature. Mason also indicated that none of the provisions in the 1788 model Bill of Rights he wrote, which included the Second Amendment two-clause original predecessor, were amendments to the militia powers of the Constitution .<BR/><BR/>"Well regulated" in conjunction with militia meant an effective militia, and that is all it meant in or out of a bill of rights context. It did not mean controlled by the government. The militia were understood as all the able bodied men. One last detail; Mason used well regulated militia to describe a defensive association of all the able bodied men self-emboided for defense against government officials and forces over a year prior to writing the 1776 Virginia Bill of Rights. Understanding that the first clause of the Second Amendment refers to an effective militia consisting of all the able bodied men makes the Second Amendment much more clear.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Anyone seriously interested in the details of the Second Amendment's development and meaning would benefit from reading <I>The Founders' View of the Right to Bear Arms</I>. It was cited to the Supreme Court a total of seventeen times in these briefs supporting Heller in the DC handgun ban case: Alan Gura's Respondent's brief, the Pennsylvania Senate President Pro-Tem's amicus, the Academics for the Second Amendment's amicus, and Gun Owners of America's amicus.<BR/><BR/>A lot is known about the historical details of the Second Amendment's development, but very few individuals are aware of the overwhelming number of clear details indicating exactly what it meant to the Founders who developed it. For information on <I>The Founders' View of the Right to Bear Arms</I>, go to: http://www.secondamendmentinfo.comDavid E. Younghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01108309257699077532noreply@blogger.com