Oh, my. "Meet the face of (Colorado's) pro-gun recall campaigns"
As the Colorado Springs Independent's Chet Hardin reported late yesterday:
The Basic Freedom Defense Fund was formed specifically to lead recall efforts of gun-control-minded Colorado Democrats, such Colorado Springs' Sen. John Morse and his Westminster-based colleague, Sen. Evie Hudak.
The spokesman for the grassroots organization is Nick Andrasik. And this seems to be the way Andrasik presents himself online, at least on ar15.com:
When we reached him by phone this afternoon, we described the above photo to Andrasik. Though he couldn't be certain that it was one of his photos without actually seeing it, he said it was "probably me." Further, the avatar that Andrasik uses on his ar15.com profile is the same image that shows up on his Facebook page.
Lynn Bartels of the Denver Post writes today about the recall attempts now underway against several Colorado legislators, including Rep. Mike McLachlan of Durango and Senate President John Morse of Colorado Springs. Bartels reports that a recall attempt is about to get underway against Sen. Evie Hudak of Arvada as well, and quotes the same Nick Andrasik pictured above saying, "It seemed that recalling them would be a great way" to get legislators' attention. Most regrettably, Bartels did not include a photo of Mr. Andrasik for her story.
Or any mention, as the Springs Independent continues, of Andrasik's own statements about some of those Democratic legislators. Reader discretion strongly advised....
Read More: http://coloradopols.com/diary/40236/meet-the-face-of-the-pro-gun-recall-campaigns
Edited to add: See also, "Spokesman for Colorado gun recall group calls legislators the “c” word and other labels on web page": http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/2013/04/05/gun-recall-group-spokesman-for-gun-recall-group-calls-legislators-the-c-word-and-other-things-on-his-facebook-page/93714/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Response to Robb (Original post)
What is our society thinking??
Which means that military weapons are still appropriate. The Constitution hasn't changed.
jimmy: So what scalia 'said' is pretty much crap
Except that it is now the law of the land.
jimmy: english decision, 1871: The word "arms" in the connection we find it in the Constitution.., refers to the arms of a militiaman or soldier, and the word is used in its military sense.
Exactly, which means that "the people" have the right to keep and bear "arms" which would mean weapons that would be useful in a military sense.
jimmy: Certainly, 2ndA as a militia based right it makes sense, as does applying 'bear arms'; But if you try to apply this to scalia's 'individual rkba' aberration you are mixing things up, applying the proper 'bear arms' concept to an improper grouping - citizens unconnected to militia or military. From what I've seen I don't see a problem with this paragraph. It also seems to validate several state constitutions laws (then) which prohibited carrying concealed weapons.
Except it is not a militia based right. The founders used "the people" as a term of art. Everywhere that it is used, it has been interpreted as an individual right. "
T)he 'normal rule of statutory construction that "identical words used in different parts of the same act are intended to have the same meaning."'" Sullivan v. Stroop, 496 U.S. 478 (1990) (internal citations omitted). It violates the rules of statutory construction to interpret the Second Amendment in the way that you desire.
jimmy: In the vernacular of the 1939 day this (& the passage you cited) was considered proof which negated the individual rkba interpretation.
That's nowhere near correct. Miller cited a number of other cases that support the individual right, and the right to self defense. See State v. Duke, 42 Tex. 455 (1874) ("The arms which every person is secured the right to keep and bear . . . must be such arms as are commonly kept, according to the customs of the people, and are appropriate for open and manly use in self-defense, as well as such as are proper for the defense of the State."
; People v. Brown, 235 N.W. 245 (Mich. 1931) ("The protection of the Constitution is not limited to militiamen nor military purposes, in terms, but extends to "every person" to bear arms for the "defense of himself" as well as of the State." ; Fife v. State, 31 Ark. 455 (1876) ("It is manifest from the language of the article, and from the expressions of these learned commentators, that the arms which it guarantees American citizens the right to keep and to bear, are such as are needful to, and ordinarily used by a well regulated militia, and such as are necessary and suitable to a free people, to enable them to resist oppression, prevent usurpation, repel invasion, etc., etc." .
These cases are all cited by Miller and support the conclusion of Miller, which was a sawed off shotgun, having no relation to arms used in the military service, was not protected. Nowhere did it indicate that it was a collective right instead of an individual right, and no amount of revisionist editing will change that.
Look, I understand that you don't like individual firearm rights. I don't like paying income taxes. Both are constitutional issues, and we have to deal with it.
and Happy Resurrection. Your NRA Gungeon buddies must be very proud of your persistence in disrupting this Group. Take care now -- heah?...
whatever you say...
excop: Which means that military weapons are still appropriate {for militias}. The Constitution hasn't changed {since 1791}.
The constitution hasn't changed (much), but the law has. There is no longer any 'well regulated citizens militia' as envisioned by madison & ff. The militia act of 1792 was superseded by the militia act of ~1903 (charles dick act), which created the national gds & the UNorganized militia, the former a select militia, the latter failing the 2ndA litmus test in that it is UNORGANIZED, not well regulated.
jimmy: 1871: The word "arms" in the connection we find it in the Constitution.., refers to the arms of a militiaman or soldier, and the word is used in its military sense.
excop: Exactly, which means that "the people" have the right to keep and bear "arms" which would mean weapons that would be useful in a military sense.
Hahaha, as justice breyer might've said, strained & fractured reasoning. Only when adjunct to a well regulated citizens militia, which today is non existent. If there were an all encompassing citizens militia such as swiss have, then yeah, american militiamen could keep an assault rifle at home.
excop: Except it {miller} is not a militia based right. The founders used "the people" as a term of art. Everywhere that it is used, it has been interpreted as an individual right. " T)he 'normal rule of statutory construction that "identical words used in different parts of the same act are intended to have the same meaning."'" Sullivan v. Stroop (1990). It violates the rules of statutory construction to interpret the Second Amendment in the way that you desire.
Sullivan v Stroop in 1990 cannot be extended backwards to constitutional periods & applied absolutely. Also a later ruling:
"While it is "the normal rule of statutory construction that identical words used in different parts of the same act are intended to have the same meaning," Sullivan-Stroop, (1990) that "presumption is defeasible.. the presumption conflicts with other normal rules of construction." Bray v. Alexandria WHC (1993). Hence, the second occurrence of the term "state" in subsection 404(b) may have a narrower meaning than it bears in its first occurrence.
So your sullivan-stroop gambit is an expedient, it cannot be absolute & it's validity is contested in itself.
In 2ndA the words militia & people were used interchangeably & synonymously, as evidenced by sc justice joseph story in 1800s. Note how story is clearly referring to the militia when he uses the underlined word 'people':
SC Justice Joseph Story, early 1800's: .. though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline,and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burdens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt, and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our National Bill of Rights."
Clearly the organization story refers to is a well regulated militia, which was by law defined as white males ~17-45, which excluded women, slaves, children & retired (50 was the expected life expectancy in 1790). The 'people' were white males 17-45.
And read story's last sentence. He is concerned that indifference to militia service would gradually undermine ALL the protection of the 2ndA, which would make no sense whatsoever if story was speaking of an individual rkba disconnected from militia service.
And, were 2ndA an individual right disconnected from militia service, story would not be worried about keeping 'the people duly armed' in 'some organization', since his point would not make sense were there no militia obligation - the people could be individually armed somehow & in full compliance with 2ndA, damn the militias, hah.
excop: Miller cited a number of other cases that support the individual right, and the right to self defense. State v. Duke(1874)"The arms which every person is secured the right to keep and bear . . must be such arms as are commonly kept, according to the customs of the people, and are appropriate for open and manly use in self-defense, as well as such as are proper for the defense of the State."
Invalid, all of those references by miller do not in any way support any 2ndA individual rkba, they are referencing available arms allowed by states in their STATE constitutions, for reflected support of some kind. The miller court allowed that state's could write their own 'rkbas'; Here in fuller context is 'state v duke'. Note that TEXAS, not the 2ndA, granted the rkba to it's citizens for personal self defense:
texas v geo duke, 1874: .. we pass to the consideration of the 13th Section of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution of the State {Texas}; which is as follows: "Every person shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State, under such regulations as the Legislature may prescribe."
There is no recital of the necessity of a well-regulated militia, as there is in the corresponding {2ndA} clause in the Conmstitution of the US . The arms which every person is secured the right to keep and bear (in the defense of himself or the State, subject to legislative regulation), must be such arms as are commonly kept, according to the customs of the people, and are appropriate for open and manly use in self-defense, as well as such as are proper for the defense of the State.
excop: People v. Brown, (Mich. 1931) ("The protection of the Constitution is not limited to militiamen nor military purposes, in terms, but extends to "every person" to bear arms for the "defense of himself" as well as of the State." ;
The michigan court is referring to michigan's constitution, not the US constitution 2ndA. So again your point is invalid, in that miller was not referring to any individual right conferred by 2ndA.
Michigan's rkba: Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state
excop: Fife v. State, Ark.(1876) "It is manifest from the language of the article {2ndA} , that the arms which it guarantees American citizens the right to keep and to bear, are such as are needful to, and ordinarily used by a well regulated militia, and such as are necessary and suitable to a free people, to enable them to resist oppression, prevent usurpation, repel invasion, etc., etc.".
No idea what you're trying to prove here, note the underlined in para above. This comports well with my point of view, not yours, imo. Please elucidate.
excop: These cases are all cited by Miller and support the conclusion of Miller .. Nowhere did it indicate that it was a collective right instead of an individual right, and no amount of revisionist editing will change that.
Nowhere?????: Miller ruling, 1939: "The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power - 'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union'.... With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration anguarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view."
NOWHERE????: april love/pepersack/1995: .. the {2nd} amendment does not confer an absolute individual right to bear any type of firearm. In 1939, the Supreme Court held that the federal statute prohibiting possession of a sawed-off shotgun was constitutional, because the defendant had not shown that his possession of such a gun bore a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." United States v. Miller,(1939). Since then, the lower federal courts have uniformly held that the 2nd Amendment preserves a collective, rather than individual, right. http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndcourt/federal/3fed.htm
