DEBATE OF '98- responsibilities of forest land owners
mcour at telxon.com
mcour at telxon.com
Fri Apr 24 08:27:29 EST 1998
In article <353fa034.0 at news.pacifier.com>,
dhogaza at pacifier.com (Don Baccus) wrote:
> What part of "well-regulated militia" do you not understand?
What part of grammar don't you understand? The second amendment consists of
to independent clauses. In any non-political statement, any english teacher
would tell you that the meaning of the two separate assertions in a similarly
worded sentence stands indepenently of the other assertion. Assuming
dependence from juxtaposition is a horrible method of interpreting a text and
has been rejected by english teachers, courts and Bible scholars. A
well-regulated militia was undoubtedly a motivation for the right to keep and
bear arms, however the grammar of the second amendment simply does not support
the position that the right to keep and bear arms is restricted to
well-regulated militias. And the Supreme Court has never ruled that this
right is limited to militias.
> Your right to private property is balanced by government powers granted
> in the constitution to promote the public good, etc. You'll note the
> 5th amendment didn't strike any such clauses...
> >How is it that the "interstate commerce clause" gives the feds the right to
> >regulate how close a gun can come to a school or how long a jar of jelly
> >spend in a hot water bath even if none of these things ever goes near a
> Can we both agree, at least, that this has nothing to do with forestry?
No. The relevance is that if the interstate commerce clause can be used to
extend government regulation to guns and jelly that never cross a state line,
then at the whim of Congress, it can be used to extend federal regulation to
privately owned timber and timber products that never cross a state line.
> You mean Smith and Wesson have gun factories in all 50 states? Strange,
> I thought they manufactured the guns and shipped them to stores, over
> state lines. Isn't Glock overseas? How does Glock manage to get
> its guns into stores without crossing state lines?
I would not argue that federal regulation is justified by the interstate
commerce clause in cases where the merchandise crosses a state line. But the
feds have overstepped their bounds in several ways:
1. If I am a resident of New York State and buy a gun from Remingtom in Ilion,
NY, I still have to fill out a federal form 4473.
2. There is a federal law preventing me from shipping a gun, even as a private
gift, unless the person recieving the gun has the appropriate federl
liscenses. Gifts are not commerce.
If they can do it with gun transfers which do not constiture interstate
commerce, then they can do it with timber transfers too. When guns are
outlawed and baseball bats become the weapon of choice, expect to see mote
regulation of the ash and hickory markets. Shoot, you'll probably need a FTL
(federal timber liscense) and every baseball bat will need a serial number and
can only be sold to people after a five day waiting period.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
More information about the Ag-forst