T
H
E

L
I
B
E
R
T
A
R
I
A
N

E
N
T
E
R
P
R
I
S
E


I
s
s
u
e

58


L. Neil Smith's
THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
Number 58, October 31, 1999
All Hallows Eve

Letters to the Editor

by Our Readers
Send letters to TLE@johntaylor.org


Letter from Charles Curley


Letter from Jeff Colonnesi


Letter from Jack Resch


Letter from Brian


Letter from Bill Hart


Letter from Charles Curley

Mr. Harvey Morrell hmorrell@UBmail.ubalt.edu writes:

"To jodle@primenet.com

"Your analysis is dead on, especially in part 1 of your article. Here in Maryland, the statutes says that the Militia shall be composed of all able-bodied persons, male and female. (Article 65, section 1). It seems pretty clear that if you combine this with the 2nd Amendment, all residents of Maryland are entitled to keep and bear arms. FWIW."

Letters, TLE #57

Mr. Morrell errs on two points.

First, not all residents of Maryland are able-bodied persons, so under this reasoning not all residents of Maryland would be entitled to the right to keep and bear arms.

Second, and worse, Mr. Morrell stands convicted of being unable to read the clear words of the Second Amendment. Once more, Mr. Morrell: "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." (emphasis added) It says nothing about any "right of the militia to keep and bear arms." If the right the Second Amendment protects were restricted to a group of people determined by their physical condition (able-bodiedness, in this instance), it would be unique among the rights protected by the Bill of Rights.

As Chief Justice Rehnquist has noted, "the people" is a term of art which refers to those people who are part of a "national community". U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 US 259, 265, 108 L Ed 2d 222, 232-233, 110 S Ct 1056, 1060-1061 (1990)

This analysis is implicit in American jurisprudence. In US v. Miller, the question of whether defendant/appellees Miller and Layton were members of the militia never came up, for the simple reason that the question of membership in the militia was irrelevant to the question at hand. U.S. v. Miller 307 US 174, 83 L Ed 1206, 59 S Ct 816 (1939) See also my essay, "The Miller Test".

Mr. Morrell is apparently responding to James J. Odle's essay, "Those Horrid, Horrid Guns". Article 1, TLE #56. Apparently Mr. Morrell can't read that either, as Mr. Odle makes it quite clear that the Second Amendment applies to all of the people. In part two, he has a translation (more concisely, a gloss) which makes this point quite clear.

Perhaps Mr. Morrell is, as evidenced by his inability to read fairly straightforward English, a victim of government schooling. If so, then under the terms of the Americans with Disabilities Act, he is considered a disabled person. (See my first point, above.) If so, then, granting for the sake of argument his own analysis of the Second Amendment, quoted above, Mr. Morrell does not have the right to keep and bear arms.

Sincerely,

[signed]
Charles Curley ccurley@spam.sux.trib.com
A HREF="http://www.curleywolfe.net/crc/">http://www.curleywolfe.net/crc/
---
Also, btw, Alan Alda (of all people!) made an excellent film a number of years ago called "Escape from Sobibor". In, of all places, what was then Yugoslavia.

Back to the top


Letter from Jeff Colonnesi

>2. Because we have ambulances, only ambulances should be allowed to
>drive someone to the hospital.

We are coming closer to this than you may think.

A freind of mine is an ex-canadian cop who is in the process of getting his US citzenship. His son got in a little trouble last year while driving.

It seems that the son was at a high scool sports event when one of the people there became injured. The son, being a nice kid, decided the best course of action would be to drive the individual to the local hospital. En route, he exceeded the speed limit and was stopped by the police. He explained that it was an emergency. The cop insisted that he remain on the spot, called an ambulance, waited for it and had the injured party transfeered into the ambulance. He then proceeded to write up the youngster for speeding, threatened him with several other tickets and the possibility of an arrest for "reckless endangerment", lectured him, searched his car, then sent him home.

When he attempted to fight the ticket in court, claiming that he was guilty with an explanation (the emergency), he got a shock. The judge informed him that "just because someone's life may be in danger, that is not an excuse to break the law". He was then assesed the full fine plus points plus ordered to perform a few hours of comunity service (unsure how many). The judge also stated, for the record, that if a situation exists where someone needs to be transported quickly to a hospital, your only two choices are to stay within the posted speed limits and traffic laws or to call an ambulance.

The kicker is that his father felt he got what was coming to him. When I expressed suprise at his attitude, he explained it. Apparently, in Canada, there is NO excuse for violating even the most minor law. In fact, if it had been in Canada, and an ambulance had been called but was unavailable, the officer could have forced him to remain under the posted speed limit the entire way to the hospital, even if it caused the injured person to die while en route, and the officer would bear no responsibility.

He absoloutly could not understand my instance that, the way I was raised, and under the laws in this country, his son should have refused to even stop for the cop until he reached the hospital. He was flabergasted when I told him that I had, on two seperate occasions, done that very thing. He was shocked to hear that the officers involved (in my case) did nothing more than run a check on my license and advise me of a few things I should do differently. However, in my cases it happened many years ago.

In short, the police and courts are trying to get people to meekly hand over their right to preserve their lives (and that of loved ones) when doing so would violate even minor local ordinances.

Jeff Colonnesi jcolonne@flash.net

Back to the top


Letter from Jack Resch

Mr. Taylor,

With some fanfare and little justification, the Commonwealth of Virginia has announced a traffic monitoring plan that is Orwellian to the extreme. VDOT (Va. Dept. of Transportation) has installed cameras on virtually all feeder bridges leading toward or away from D.C. This includes any bridges accross the Potomac, Rappahannock, Occoquan, and Rapidan Rivers. Using yet more extra-Constitutional powers, VDOT is recording all licence plates (yes, all) and checking their point of origins to determine traffic flow to and from our Capital. They will utilize an independent data base operated by DMV of Virginia to look up these data. The Washington Metro area is having some local traffic tie-ups, and this is the only justification apparently required.

There are no planned attempts by any organizations to try to legally block this patent infringement of our privacy in the Commonwealth. As I am not savvy in legalities (I'm not a lawyer, I work for a living),so what suggestions do any of our loyal supporters have?

I know there is a Libertarian Party in Virginia, but am I to assume they are mute on this issue? I have sent a letter of complaint to the VDOT and The Governor's Mansion. I am shocked that I have recieved no response. The idea that licence plates exist at all is abhorrent to me in the first place, but that they are used to monitor people's movements is beyond the pale. Oh well, ya know what they say about registration, just one step before they take 'em away. Hope they don't want tags on my horse....

Jack Resch
Jack & Steph's Stonehouse Farm stonehousefarm@erols.com

Back to the top


Letter from Brian

David [Roberson],

Got to thinking about the question, [car/firearm equivalents] and went off on a little different tangent:

Geo Metro/Raven .25 (not really fair, I've owned both--and the Raven never let me down);

Yugo/8mm Nambu late war production--both were more dangerous to the user than anybody else;

Citroen/8mm Lebel--'nuff said!

Pontiac Fiero/Cobray--poor man's toys(but again, the gun is better than the car was)

Mercedes SUV/Barrett .50--gotta be rich to feed either one!

Hummer/Browning Quad .50--if you have to ask how much, you can't afford either one;

Pontiac Sunfire/Lorcin 9mm--you see more of each in certain parts of town;

F-150/Marlin .30-30--reasonably priced, reliable, often seen in proximity to each other and to mobile homes;

Ford Straight Six/ .45ACP--neither the most powerful, but both would get the job done;

455 Rocket/.44 Magnum--a little too much engine, a little too much gun, and...

Gordon Liddy's Lingonfelder/.454 Casull--both rare and way over-powered.

LOL,

Brian hsskchai@prodigy.net

Back to the top


Letter from Bill Hart

It's been bothering me for quite some time that we can't call the "One party system" by something simple and yet truly descriptive. After many hours of frustration I finally found it.

COMUNAZI!

It says it all in one simple word. If anyone has a better one I'd sure like to hear it. Until then I shall refer to any member of that system as what I think is the most self descriptive new word in our language!

Bill Hart
florcondor@cs.com

Back to the top


Next to advance to the next article, or
Previous to return to the previous article, or
Table of Contents to return to The Libertarian Enterprise, Number 58, October 31, 1999.