On 10/20/03 4:16 PM, "Jon Roland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> It has been contended by some that the phrase "shall not be infringed"
> forbids all kinds of regulation or registration, even the kind that is
> exercised upon persons while in actual militia service. Others argue that a
> right may be subject to "reasonable regulation", which apparently means
> regulation that does not impose an "undue burden" on the exercise of a
> right. But that opens the question of what would constitute a "reasonable"
> regulation, and when we examine founding-era history and the Constitution,
> we only find the kind of regulation that enhances the effectiveness of
> militia.
It seems to me that the pertinent question for your inquiry shouldn't be
what regulations were actually enacted, but what regulations people of that
era would have believed to be constitutional, had they had reason to
consider them.
Congress passed the Sedition Act 7 years after ratification of a
constitutional amendment that said "Congress shall make no law...abridging
the freedom of speech."
Do you think that the phrase "shall not be infringed" would have been
treated with more reverence than "shall make no law," had Congress in 1798
(the era of which you speak) felt like enacting some sort of firearms
regulations?
--
Bob Woolley
St. Paul, MN
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I
don't do these things to other people, and I require the same from them.
-- John Wayne, as J.B. Books, in "The Shootist" (1976)
