Second Amendment grammar -- the Framers parsed it one way, but will the Supreme Court agree with their analysis? (UNCLASSIFIED)

[Dave Wilton]

No, exactly the opposite is the case, at least legally. The US Constitution,
Article I, Section 8 states, in part, that the US Congress has the power to:

"To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union,
suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

"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".

The commanders in chief of the National Guard are the governors of the
separate states and it is only under limited circumstances that they are
called up for federal duty. States are also able to create their own defense
forces that are not subject to federal duty; I don't think any state's
currently do this, but I can't say for sure.


-----Original Message-----
From: American Dialect Society [mailto:ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf Of
James Smith
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 7:50 AM
To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: Second Amendment grammar -- the Framers parsed it one way, but
will the Supreme Court agree with their analysis? (UNCLASSIFIED)

Both points well taken.  However, the National Guard
is basically an extension of the federal government;
the feds train, arm, supply, and provide most of the
funding for the Nat'l Guard.  Under some
circumstances, individual state governors exercise
limited command, subject to federal oversight.

No one in the National Guard supplies their own arms.
(Although I think it is noteworthy that the Battle of
Lexington and Concord was precipitated by British
forays to capture militia supplies rather than any
attempt to disarm individuals.)

Millions who "bear arms" are under no type of "good
order".


--- "Mullins, Bill AMRDEC" <Bill.Mullins at US.ARMY.MIL>
wrote:

> Classification:  UNCLASSIFIED
> Caveats: NONE
>
> "Well-regulated" is also subject to historical
> misinterpretation.  At
> the time of its writing, it probably meant "in good
> order" or something
> like that.  It likely didn't mean that it was a
> militia subject to a
> number of formal regulations
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: American Dialect Society
> > [mailto:ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf Of
> Jonathan Lighter
> > Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 5:27 PM
> > To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
> > Subject: Re: Second Amendment grammar -- the
> Framers parsed
> > it one way, but will the Supreme Court agree with
> their
> > analysis? (UNCLASSIFIED)
> >
> > ---------------------- Information from the mail
> header
> > -----------------------
> > Sender:       American Dialect Society
> <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> > Poster:       Jonathan Lighter
> <wuxxmupp2000 at YAHOO.COM>
> > Subject:      Re: Second Amendment grammar -- the
> Framers
> > parsed it one way,
> >               but will the Supreme Court agree
> with their analysis?
> >               (UNCLASSIFIED)
> >
>
--------------------------------------------------------------
> > -----------------
> >
> > It is difficult to argue that the present National
> Guard is
> > _not_ "a well-regulated militia."  Just what that
> > interpretation may mean to the import of the
> amendment I
> > leave to others.
> >
> >   JL
> >
> > James Smith <jsmithjamessmith at YAHOO.COM> wrote:
> >   ---------------------- Information from the mail
> header
> > -----------------------
> > Sender: American Dialect Society
> > Poster: James Smith
> > Subject: Re: Second Amendment grammar -- the
> Framers parsed
> > it one way, but will the Supreme Court agree with
> their analysis?
> > (UNCLASSIFIED)
> >
>
--------------------------------------------------------------
> > -----------------
> >
> > My question is: when are they going to get around
> to
> > organizing this well-regulated militia? It's been
> two-hundred years!
> >
> >
> >
> > James D. SMITH |If history teaches anything South
> SLC, UT |it
> > is that we will be sued jsmithjamessmith at yahoo.com
> |whether
> > we act quickly and decisively
> > |or slowly and cautiously.
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection
> > around http://mail.yahoo.com
> >
> >
>
------------------------------------------------------------
> > The American Dialect Society -
> http://www.americandialect.org
> >
> >
> >
> __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection
> > around http://mail.yahoo.com
> >
> >
>
------------------------------------------------------------
> > The American Dialect Society -
> http://www.americandialect.org
> >
> >
> Classification:  UNCLASSIFIED
> Caveats: NONE
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society -
> http://www.americandialect.org
>


James D. SMITH                 |If history teaches anything
South SLC, UT                  |it is that we will be sued
jsmithjamessmith at yahoo.com     |whether we act quickly and decisively
                               |or slowly and cautiously.



____________________________________________________________________________
________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org