08Sept29Congressman Dave Camp
Dear Mr. Camp:
Up until yesterday, my sense was that the proposed BAILOUT would reward the very
people most responsible for the recent financial problems in this country.
Yesterday I got a phone call from a friend in Utah who has studied this issue
more than I have and he thinks the same thing.
You should probably vote against the bailout legislation that has been proposed
as of last week. But it is my custom to offer more than yes-or-no answers. So
here is what I am suggesting that you propose as an alternative:
However much money is being proposed to bail out the financial giants
($700,000,000 or more?), divide up that same amount among the adult citizens of
this country ($8,000 or so each?) If the personal allowance is counted as income
for the purpose of determining eligibility for all government programs, there
would be an enormous savings to taxpayers in the form of reduced costs of
administrating those programs.
My sense is that between the additional money ordinary citizens would have to
invest or spend and the savings to taxpayers, those factors would do more to
correct the present downturn in the economy than a bailout of banks, mortgage
companies or both.
Our computer isn’t working very well and at the moment and our printer doesn’t
work either but if I can send you a snail-mail about this too, I’ll try to do
so.
Yours truly,
Roger Metzger
Buckley, Michigan 49620

--- On Mon, 6/30/08, McGinnes <gun.toting.liberal@...> wrote:

From: McGinnes <gun.toting.liberal@...>
Subject: [guntotingliberals] The ACLU on Gun Control
To: guntotingliberals@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, June 30, 2008, 1:16 PM






As a result of the recent Supreme Court decision in DC v. Heller, it
looks like the ACLU needs to update it's position statement on the
second amendment. Let's give them a hand.

Why doesn't the ACLU support an individual's unlimited right to keep and
bear arms?
BACKGROUND
The ACLU has often been criticized for "ignoring the Second Amendment"
and refusing to fight for the individual's right to own a gun or other
weapons. This issue, however, has not been ignored by the ACLU. The
national board has in fact debated and discussed the civil liberties
aspects of the Second Amendment many times.

We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a
collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to
maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the
central government. (The Supreme Court has ruled that the Second
Amendment refers to an individual right, so the preceding sentence
should be struck). In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic
and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns
or hunting rifles. (As it the court says in DC v. Heller, "It may be
true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day
bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited
the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right
cannot change our interpretation of the right." The GTL further notes
that individuals bearing small arms and improvised weapons have made a
pretty good showing of it against modern militaries, for better or
worse. For example, the residents of the Warsaw ghetto againts Nazi
Germany, The North Vietnamese against the French and the US, The
Afganies against the Soviets, just about every African nation against
its colonial power, and I'm sure you can think of a few more. In any
case, the previous sentence should be struck).The ACLU therefore
believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right
upon individuals to own guns or other weapons (since SCOTUS decided that
the Second Amendment DOES refer to an individual right, this sentence
needs to be edited. Something along the lines of, "The ACLU therefore
believes that the Second Amendment refers to an individual, but not
unlimited right.") nor does it The Second Amendment does not prohibit
reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and
registration if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously.

IN BRIEF
The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe
that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of
gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and
register guns. (The requirement that cars be registered before they can
be driven on public roads, and that drivers be licenced before they can
drive them on public roads has little relevance to keeping and bearing
arms in one's own home. If the ACLU is suggesting that a license and
registration to carry a firearm in public (concealed or not) should be
treated like car registrations and drivers licenses, where a license and
registration issued in one state is automatically recognized in all
states, we support that suggestion.)

Most opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment
certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own bazookas,
missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols and even
submachine guns, are arms.

The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but
how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the
Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide. (United
States v. Miller limits the type of weapons to which the right applies
to those used by the militia, i.ei., those in common use for lawful
purposes. "Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are
those 'in common use at the time'....")

ACLU POLICY
"The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation
of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller]
that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the
preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for
lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by
individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no
constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." — Policy
#47 (This policy needs to be completely rewritten. Just as freedom of
speech can be limited (you can't yell fire in a crowded theater, one
needs a license to have a parade), the right to keep and bear arms can
be limited. Just as the ACLU works to protect our freedom of speech,
they should work to protect our right to keep and bear arms. If the ACLU
can defend the right of the American Nazi Party to get a parade license
in Skokie, Ill., they can at least defend the right of law abiding
citizens to get a license to own rifles, pistols, and shot guns that are
in common use.)

ARGUMENTS, FACTS, QUOTES

"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."

— The Second Amendment to the Constitution
"Since the Second Amendment. . . applies only to the right of the State
to maintain a militia and not to the individual's right to bear arms,
there can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right to
possess a firearm."

— U.S. v. Warin (6th Circuit, 1976)
Unless the Constitution protects the individual's right to own all kinds
of arms, there is no principled way to oppose reasonable restrictions on
handguns, Uzis or semi-automatic rifles.
If indeed the Second Amendment provides an absolute, constitutional
protection for the right to bear arms in order to preserve the power of
the people to resist government tyranny, then it must allow individuals
to possess bazookas, torpedoes, SCUD missiles and even nuclear warheads,
for they, like handguns, rifles and M-16s, are arms. Moreover, it is
hard to imagine any serious resistance to the military without such
arms. Yet few, if any, would argue that the Second Amendment gives
individuals the unlimited right to own any weapons they please. But as
soon as we allow governmental regulation of any weapons, we have broken
the dam of Constitutional protection. Once that dam is broken, we are
not talking about whether the government can constitutionally restrict
arms, but rather what constitutes a reasonable restriction. (SCOTUS has
ruled that the second amendment refers to arms used by the militia,
i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes, such as self defense, not
to bazookas, Missles, etc. and refers to an individuals right to bear
such arms. Further, the lawful purpose of the right to bear arms in not
in place only to protect against a tyranical government, but for
individual self protection. Therefore, the preceeding is moot and should
be struck.)

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


















[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]