E-mail From the Desk of Neal Lang
Hi, Dave,
Again thanks for the prompt and thoughtful reply.
>In re what Ashcroft can do as head of the DoJ: same thing they did after
the 14th Am- protect rkba and other rights, albeit they did it there
selectively. I'd like to see the DoJ prosecute a gov. agency for denying a
citizen their 2A rights. You can bet THAT case would make it up to SCOTUS
post-haste. Don't think that's likely, due to "pragmatism" and
"compromise". I am heartened to see Metaja denied advancement- we shall
see how they continue with Emerson, and if they pursue the current DoJ
position...
Is the 14th Amendment even valid? I have seen some interesting evidence
that says maybe not. (See the Unconstitutional 14th Amendment at:
http://www.barefootsworld.net/14uncon.html - for some real interesting
stuff. Apparently Herr Reno wasn't the first with the "jack-booted
thugs"?) ("Jack-booted thugs?" Hmmm! Didn't Wayne LaPierre of the NRA
make the phrase a National Cause Celeb? Didn't George I burn his Life
Member NRA card because of Wayne's use of that expression to describe our
friends at ATF? Hmmm! Not bad for a HCI clone!) Anyway, assuming it was
correctly passed and ratified - now what?
According to the Supremes, Dave, apparently the rkba was not included in
the "privileges and immunities" of the 14th Amendment (See U.S. v.
Cruikshank at:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=92&invol=542
- this 1875 (post 14th Amendment) case recognizes the rkba, but not for
blacks in Louisiana.) You being such big a Supremes fan (e.g. Marbury v.
Madison) this of must be the definitive answer for you. All General
Ashcroft can do is enforce the law, Dave.
The Congress must pass the laws; the Courts determine the constitutional
limits of the law; and the Executive, through the AG, sees that the laws
are "faithfully executed". In order to prosecute, Dave, General Ashcroft
needs a violation of the Federal Code. Please provide the Federal Code
cite, point out the errant governmental agency, and let's get the ball
rolling. I'll bet General Ashcroft will prosecute in a heart-beat if the
facts are there to indict.
As for Emerson, if the 5th Circuit finds for Dr. Emerson (upholds the
District Court decision) I hope DoJ pushes it to the Supremes, who must
take the case, IMMHO, as the Circuits will then be disjointed on
Lauternberg.
Worst scenario - the 5th Circuit overturns (I don't like the delay).
Next worst - the 5th Circuit upholds the District Court decision, and DoJ
decides to drop the case. If so, only those lucky folks in the 5th (Texas
and Louisiana) can stop worrying about Lautenberg, the rest of us still
will have it over our heads.
Best scenario - the 5th Circuit upholds the District Court decision, and
DoJ (General Ashcroft) decides to push the case to the Supremes. Of course
this a "crap shoot" but I believe Justice Thomas will be writing a 2nd
Amendment decision that will make Sister Brady find Jesus, IMMHO. This
would be the current DoJ position. If General Ashcroft pushes it, I hope
you cut him some slack because it will be almost impossible for the
Supremes to duck this one.
>In re Project Exile, sorry, but you did not really answer my questions.
Sorry, I must have missed it. Did you include an interrogatory sign?
>While you don't mind if the fedgov usurps powers not enumerated to them if
the cause is 'worthwhile', ie, taking a gangbanger off the streets, I am
concerned more with the gov assuming powers that are not theirs- as heinous
as the criminals are, they wreak nowhere near the human carnage and misery
that governments unbound do- how much further down this slope are YOU
willing to tolerate our descent?
Actually I do worry about Federalism, Dave, but you brought up Marbury v.
Madison, not me. Frankly I believe a good case could be made that once "the
People's right to keep and bear arms" was added to the Constitution, the
"power" was "enumerated" then and there. I believe this is exactly what
Madison was so afraid of in adding the "Bill of Rights" in the first place.
It opened areas to the Federal government he never intended they would be
allowed. The originally limited Federal government now obviously has
something to say about "the People's speech, religion, homes, papers, guns,
presses, assemblies, etc., etc., etc." - there are Articles now addressing
each of these areas. Just look at the Federal Court cases now addressing
these areas. You (the big Marbury v. Madison fan) can't honestly say the
Feds aren't SUPREME. Be careful what you wish for, my friend, it might be
granted. We may not be able to put the genie back in the bottle, my
friend.
Personally, like Madison, I believe the slope started with the "Bill of
Rights", was greased by Marbury v. Madison and many of Justice Marshall's
decisions, and really got into full descent with the Civil War and the 14th
Amendment, followed closely by Sherman Anti-trust, et. al. By the time the
"New Deal" arrived, we already had an income tax, Dave, and we were pretty
well "bagged and tagged".
Actually your idea of "Guns for Felons" will not make the top 10 of Pro-gun
PR programs, IMMHO, my friend. If the Constitution says "the People's
right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", there is also a
corollary - that there just might be some (prisoners in Federal prisons,
for example) that this could logically be exclude. So the Federal
government makes laws to enforce same. Once this begins, as it did in
1793, then obviously felons might also be logically excluded. That is, of
course, unless you wish to promote a system "responsibility-free rights".
A convicted felon, Dave, displays a certain lack of responsibility, IMMHO.
I think that there just might be some "compelling state interest" in
disarming such an irresponsible person. Of course, "due process" should be
the arbiter in establishing felonious behavior. Also, I have no problem
with a convicted felon having his rights restored. Again, only following
appropriate "due process".
A "compelling state interest" insists that if one is to have the "right to
keep and bear arms", they should exercise same responsibly. I think you
will agree that irresponsible firearms use could prove dangerous to my, or
your, or anyone's "Natural Right to Life". Walla! The States has
"compelling interest".
>And, again, yeah, I know NRA says they are only to use such laws against
really really REALLY bad guys- but my point is, and you have not refuted
it, they CAN be applied to anyone.
I believe Emerson shows that there are limits. Can the government
(Federal, State, and Local) disarm citizens? Yes, Dave, it happens every
day, with or without "Project Exile". However, you seem to be concerned
more about felons rights than you are about my wife rights. She has a
"Natural Right to Life".
The last time my house was "invaded" my wife arrived while the perp was
still in the house. He was armed. Fortunately he bugged out the back door
from our bed-room, while my wife was putting groceries away in the kitchen.
Apparently all my NRA paraphernalia laying around the house induced him to
"beat feet". As much as you think this crack addict deserves the rkba,
Dave, I can't see it. The vast majority of "the People", including most
gun-owners, feel the same way, I believe. Your fight against "Project
Exile" is really hopeless and totally counter-productive, IMMHO. Worst of
all it doesn't move the ball one inch forward.
>To think that a government, already operating extra-Constitutionally, is
going to be ever bound by the niceties of interpreting the application of
their "illegal" laws according to how the NRA wants them to do it, does not
compute with me. I think your good intentions may just be paving the road
to Hell here- probably not under Bush, but what about under Pres. Hillary?
Sorry, no matter the motive, I just don't think the ends justify the means
here.
If you continue to champion "gun rights for felons", Dave, we will probably
see President Hillary. Jumping up and down and shouting the government
acts unconstitutionally is really not making your case. To my knowledge
"Project Exile" is a designed to take "armed felons" off the street.
Personally I like the idea. If you have proof that "Project Exile" is
really taking "honest citizens" off the street, by all means, please,
present your evidence. I will then join you in "jumping up and down and
shouting". But without such evidence, you have "No Sale" here, my friend.
Sorry!
>I don't recall advocating political firing squads, but as long as you
bring it up, let me add one qualifier- I hope you agree with me that their
jury of peers should be fully informed triers of law as well as fact?
Just my, obviously poor, attempt a satire. "Circular Firing Squads!" Get
the picture? Everyone gets in a circle and shoots at the bad guys in the
middle, but instead, causes many "friendly fire casualties". I was
alluding to how we can easily destroy our friends by such tactics.
Actually, Dave, equating the NRA to HCI is such a tactic, IMMHO.
I, too, agree in "jury nullification" of bad laws, Dave, as did our
founders.
>That's it for me on this. "Uncle!"
Shame, Dave, just when I saw the "light at the end of the tunnel".
Keep the Faith,
Neal
Neal J. Lang (Signed)
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
