[118916] in Cypherpunks
Re: An immediate way to end federal gun control?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jim Choate)
Sun Oct 10 14:45:51 1999
From: Jim Choate <ravage@einstein.ssz.com>
Message-Id: <199910101836.NAA14018@einstein.ssz.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.10.9910101345510.18221-100000@spitfire.law.miami.edu> from "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" at "Oct 10, 99 01:46:03 pm"
To: froomkin@law.miami.edu (Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law)
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 13:36:43 -0500 (CDT)
Cc: cypherpunks@einstein.ssz.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: Jim Choate <ravage@einstein.ssz.com>
Hi Michael,
> May does not equal must.
Absolutely. I'm glad you agree that federal intervention at the state level
during times of imminent danger is not at the federals discretion.
The fact is that there is *no* delegate in the Constitution that allows the
federals to bypass the states discretionary choice in this matter.
If you'll review,
http://www.ssz.com/cdr/guns.html
you'll find that 'riots in the streets' is not sufficient to deny this
option to the states.
> On Sat, 9 Oct 1999, Jim Choate wrote:
>
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I believe I've stumbled onto a rather important aspect of gun control:
> >
> > >From The Constitution:
> >
> > No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of
> > tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any
> > agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or
> > engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as
> > will not admit of delay.
> >
> > Does this not say that each state is required to defend itself during
> > invasion or other crisis that happen so fast that the federal authorities
> > can't be brought to bare. Does it also say that it can't do this with
> > troops? Does this not imply that every state is required to provide for the
> > arming of its citizenry in crisis? Does it not also further imply a
> > continous state of readiness? Does it not also not mention the militia,
> > implying yet a fourth party (ie 'the people') is involved in defence? Does
> > it also not provide for funding for this party? Does this not imply that the
> > people are supposed to buy the guns themselves with their own money as they
> > see fit?
____________________________________________________________________
The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full
of passionate intensity.
W.B. Yeats
The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate
Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com
www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087
-====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
--------------------------------------------------------------------
