On 10/19/03 9:25 PM, "Don Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> h) Viewed in this light, gun registration is unconstitutional because it
> provides the means for disarmment of the militia
> by the federal military.
That seems awfully tenuous. The most you can say is that it might make such
disarmament less difficult. Are you willing to generalize and say that any
legislation that plausibly could make federal disarmament of state militias
less difficult is per se unconstitutional, no matter what other beneficial
(and constitutional) effects such legislation may have?
For example, buying another F-18 for the military would plausibly make
federal disarmament of state militias less difficult. Does that mean that
Congress may not appropriate funds for it? Having military bases within
states (instead of, say, offshore or in the territories) presumably gives
them easier access to the states in the event of a corrupt president issuing
orders to disarm the state militias--so is that unconstitutional? If members
of a state militia were allowed to keep, say, anti-tank missiles and land
mines in their homes, that would presumably make it easier for them to
defeat a federal force coming to disarm them--does that make federal and/or
state restrictions on private possession of such items unconstitutional?
--
Bob Woolley
St. Paul, MN
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature
is in session.
--Mark Twain
