TexasCHLforum.com

seamusTX wrote:One of my online acquaintances had an interesting comment on the wording of 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.

He wrote, the first clause could just as well say, "A firm matress being necessary to a good night's sleep." The core of the Amendment is "the right ... shall not be infringed."

As I said above, there's not much wiggle room in the 2nd Amendment. It means what it says. My argument is for other parts of the Constitution as the root law of the land.

seamusTX wrote: The Declaration of Independence is not a law; but it is a statement of political philosophy which we deviate from at our peril.

- Jim

I agree. You prove my point about outside documents being necessary to clarify the intent of the Founders.

longtooth wrote:

Mithras61 wrote:The problem is that the language and usage of the language in which the document was written has changed from when the document was written, so we have to look outside that document to clarify what is meant by some of the words and phrases.

Gotta disagree. When politicians start "going outside the Constitution" to decide what it means one of the places they "went" was to international law. Can't have that!!!

Very good reminder: The DoI has no court authority. Correct. What really torques me about that is a "personal letter" making a statement about a wall of seperation has huge authority in courts today. Yet the DoI has none.

International Law SHOULD be irrelevant (it has been ruled to not be, but our courts should uphold our laws based on our laws & the debates & discussions surrounding their passage). When you go outside the law as written, the only admissable sources of information should be the discussion and debates surrounding the law, not some other bull like what some other country thought on the subject (unless that is also part of the discussion and debate surrounding the passage of the law).

I don't care what the politicians do about going outside the Constitution in their arguments & public statements, so long as the Courts stick to the actual document and only source external documents as they are needed to clarify the law as written.

The root issue, though, is the same: the language has changed, and common usage has changed, so how are we (200+ years later) to interpret the meaning if we look solely at the Constitution and not at the surrounding debates & discussions?

seamusTX wrote:

longtooth wrote:..."the states w/ open carry don't have all the problems we were putting forth." (Forgot now who but GOOD JOB.)

Thanks.

These two statements will rock a lot of boats:

Rights are inherent and inalienable. They are endowed by God, or nature if you prefer. No legitimate government can violate them.

Governments derive their power from the consent of the people.

Both are right there in the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, but most people don't seem to understand them.

- Jim

Unfortunately, the Declaration of Independance (DoI) doesn't hold water in a court. You have to use the Constitution of These United States for your citations. The DoI can be used to help clarify the Constitution, but be careful.

The DoI was written by "radicals" that wanted to overthrow government, whereas the Constitution was written by an almost completely different group of men who were trying to establish a government (mostly because the Articles of Confederation failed, but also because the anarchy they experienced with the severely limited governing bodies & their capabilities under those articles).

It's far simpler to work with the Constitution as meaning what it says, but by not allowing it to be a living document at the same time (by allowing amendments to it, when properly passed & ratified) we limit our ability to modify based on changes in reality.

Interpreting the Constitution is a tricky thing. This is where many of the disputes come from. For example, the 2nd amendment has two clauses but most folks only remember the second. The first clause is the one that gets you in trouble, though, because the question becomes what did the founders mean by 'a well regulated militia' in that clause? Furthermore, I believe we have to look at the intent of the Founders, not solely at what the document itself says. The problem is that English is a living language, not a static language, so we have to try and determine what the words meant in the usage of the age in which they were written, not by what they mean now or what we want them to mean.

I happen to agree that the 2A means exactly what it says, and that the founders intent was that the government not be able to regulate or ban weapons of any sort. At the same time, I can see where some folks feel a need to have some limitations on the use & carry of them.

For example, I'd like to see a proficiency test before you can open carry, just like we have before you can concealed carry. My kids don't touch any firearms until they can recite & explain the 4 rules. I don't know that that is a good idea to enshrine them in the law, but it certainly wouldn't hurt to include it as a measure of negligence (e.g. - did the shooter violate one or more of the 4 rules while attempting to pop the BG).

But back to the topic on this thread, it's really very simple:

Legally binding documents aren't changeable depending on the political climate.

The problem is that the language and usage of the language in which the document was written has changed from when the document was written, so we have to look outside that document to clarify what is meant by some of the words and phrases.