[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
U.S. Constitution Title: Here’s How The Supreme Court Already Repealed The Second Amendment The Supreme Court effectively repealed the Second Amendment in District of Columbia v. Heller by restricting the amendment to common arms.In March, retired Supreme Court justice John Paul Stevens called for repealing the Second Amendment, implicitly admitting that it does what, in his dissent in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), he pretended it does not: prohibit laws infringing the right to keep and bear arms. Why Stevens called for repeal and dissented in Heller is a mystery, however. The Second Amendment was repealed, in effect, by Heller’s majority opinion. The opinion went beyond questions raised in the case and laid out a rationale by which Congress, states, and courts could ban the private possession of many offensive and defensive arms today and all such arms of the future. Heller asked the court to decide whether Washington DC’s bans on handguns, having a loaded firearm at home, and carrying a firearm at home without a permit violated the Second Amendment. Although on imperfect grounds, the court correctly ruled that the first two bans were unconstitutional. It also said if DC required a permit to carry a gun at home, it had to issue permits to qualified applicants. But, the court added, “[w]e may as well consider at this point . . . what types of weapons [the Court’s decision in U.S. v. Miller (1939)] permits.” The Court Turned Stare Decisis On Its HeadMiller asked whether the National Firearms Act of 1934 violated the Second Amendment by requiring that a short-barreled shotgun be registered with the federal government. Oddly, before the court heard the case, one defendant died and the other disappeared, so their lawyer didn’t go to Washington to present evidence on their behalf. The court thus concluded, “[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession and use of a [short-barreled shotgun] at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense” (emphasis added). For the right to “ordinary military equipment” and other arms that “could contribute to the common defense,” the court cited the decision of the Tennessee Supreme Court in Aymette v. State (1840), that “the arms, the right to keep which is secured [by Tennessee’s constitution] are such as are usually employed in civilized warfare, and that constitute the ordinary military equipment. If the citizens have these arms in their hands, they are prepared in the best possible manner to repel any encroachments upon their rights by those in authority.” Heller said, “We think that Miller’s ‘ordinary military equipment’ language must be read in tandem with what comes after: ‘[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.’” However, that mischaracterizes Miller. The arms to which Miller said people have the right are those that have a “relationship to a well regulated militia.” “Ordinary military equipment” is the first example of arms the court said have that relationship, and “what comes after” is a second example: other arms that “could contribute to the common defense.” It was three paragraphs later that the court stated the obvious: people commonly possessed “common” arms. Moreover, Heller didn’t read Miller “in tandem.” It gave weight only to Miller’s comment about “common” arms, while rejecting Miller’s and Aymette’s endorsement of the right to arms relating to militia purposes, “ordinary military equipment,” and other arms that “could contribute to the common defense.” Why ‘Common’ Can’t Be the Standard for Owning ArmsHeller’s mischaracterization of Miller is the first reason why “common” cannot be the standard for arms to which people have the right. “Common” is also vulnerable to deliberate misinterpretation. For example, while the percentage of gun owners who own an AR-15 is about the same as the percentage of drivers who own a Mercedes, judges who oppose the right to arms would likely rule that only Mercedeses are “common.” A second reason “common” cannot be the standard was noted by Justice Stephen Breyer in his dissent in Heller. He explained, “[T]he majority determines what regulations are permissible by looking to see what existing regulations permit. There is no basis for believing that the Framers intended such circular reasoning.” Breyer had in mind the majority’s argument that fully automatic rifles, common in the military, could be banned because they aren’t common among private individuals. The circularity is that they aren’t common among private individuals because they have been prohibitively taxed since 1934, banned in about half the states for almost as long, prohibited from importation since 1968, and banned from domestic manufacture since 1986. A third reason is that the U.S. Framers didn’t limit the right to “common” arms. For example, cannons, though not as common as handheld arms, weren’t excluded from the Second Amendment. In protecting the right to arms for defense against tyranny, the Framers intended for the people to win. Several quotations from them illustrate the point. James Madison: “Let a regular army . . . be at the devotion of the federal government. . . . [T]he State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger.” Alexander Hamilton: “[The] army cannot be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.” Richard Henry Lee: “To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms.” Tench Coxe: “As the military . . . might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the [Second Amendment] in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” Noah Webster: “[T]he whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.” You Can’t Protect Freedom With a SlingshotA fourth, and the most important, reason was pointed out, but rejected by Heller’s majority opinion, written by the late Justice Antonin Scalia, an originalist from whom we might have expected faithfulness to the Framers’ intent. Referring to fully-automatic rifles, Scalia wrote:
Although some laud Heller for recognizing an individual right to some arms, its false standard allows Congress and the states to ban arms they and the courts claim are not “common” or that are useful “in military service.” As Breyer put it, “On the majority’s reasoning, if tomorrow someone invents a particularly useful, highly dangerous self-defense weapon, Congress and the States had better ban it immediately, for once it becomes popular Congress will no longer possess the authority to do so.” Breyer was mocking his colleagues, but “tomorrow” is important because firearms are near the end of their 500-year era of usefulness for the military purpose the Framers intended. Notwithstanding gun-control supporters’ complaints about the supposed new-fangledness of this or that firearm or firearm accessory, firearms are glorified slingshots. Three thousand years ago, David slew Goliath with a rock ballistically comparable to a .45 caliber pistol bullet. Gunpowder propels a bullet more predictably than a whirling leather thong, but bullets, like rocks, are inert projectiles. Sometime this century, the government will be equipped with offensive and defensive handheld arms and even more futuristic arms that will render firearms as obsolete for defense against tyranny as bows and arrows are today. While our troops should be equipped with the best equipment possible when fighting America’s enemies, it requires little imagination to envision how extraordinary technologies, such as those developed by the Pentagon’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, could be misused against the American people. Of course, regardless of Heller and whether the Second Amendment is repealed, Americans have the right to keep and bear arms, including for defense against tyranny. As a wiser Supreme Court recognized in U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876), the right, which existed before the Constitution, is “not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.” But rights are a concept. Laws that are enforced have tangible effect. In early April, U.S. District Court judge William Young ruled that Heller’s endorsement of restrictions on fully automatic firearms permits Massachusetts to ban semi-automatic firearms and ammunition magazines that many firearms use. Other courts have upheld similar bans. If Americans allow their rights to be choked in this manner, they could find themselves no longer in control of government, but rather at its mercy. Mark Overstreet is a firearm instructor and author in central Texas. He retired in 2016 as the senior research coordinator of the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action, after 25 years with the organization. His views do not necessarily reflect those of the NRA.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Comments (1-10) not displayed.
So what protects the individual right to keep and bear arms? State constitutions. So you're sayng the Founders trusted the newly-formed Federal government so much that they were willing to rely on them to protect the right of ordinary citizens to keep and bear arms? Hah! As you said, the Federal government was not given the power to interfere with State militias or the arms of their members -- yet the Founders wrote the second amendment anyways. Because they didn't trust the newly-formed Federal government, and the states refused to support the U.S. Constitution unless it contained a Bill of Rights.
#12. To: nolu chan (#10) (Edited) No, it is your case law you posted that completely misinterprets who the lawful members of the militia are. Your case law never details those two classifications of the militia. Not once did you even make reference to Title 10 of the armed forces and the militia. What you referenced is some case law designed to override and diminish the importance of the classifications of the militia. The two classifications serve as an important reminder of what this country was founded under. Your case law generalized and misguided the reader which is actually very deceitful. And in law, I'm sure you were taught that deceit is legal but not lawful.
#13. To: goldilucky (#4) No, it is your case law you posted that completely misinterprets who the lawful members of the militia are. Your case law never details those two classifications of the militia. Not once did you even make reference to Title 10 of the armed forces and the militia. What the heck do think I quoted at #8 ??? I did not quote case law, I quoted the Federal statute, Title 10 United States Code Section 311. You had stated at #4 that, "Title 10 Section 311 Part (b) 2 says this quite clearly...." You quoted nothing. I quoted the section of law [10 USC § 311] which you claimed says quite clearly that you can have ordinary citizens with tanks, SAMs, flame throwers and machine guns. In fully quoting your claimed source, I readily demonstrated that it does not say a mumbling word about tanks, SAMs, flame throwers or machine guns, neither quite clearly, nor even opaquely. Now that I have told you what it is, perhaps you will recognize it is what you cited but failed to quote. http://law.justia.com/codes/us/2012/title-10/subtitle-a/part-i/chapter-13/section-311/
THE MILITIA - 10 U.S.C. § 311 (2012)
#14. To: misterwhite (#11)
So you're sayng the Founders trusted the newly-formed Federal government so much that they were willing to rely on them to protect the right of ordinary citizens to keep and bear arms? Hah! No, those are your words. I did not say that.
As you said, the Federal government was not given the power to interfere with State militias or the arms of their members -- yet the Founders wrote the second amendment anyways. I definitely did not say that either. The Founders were the guys around at the revolution and the founding. The Framers were those who crafted the original Constitution at a constitutional convention. The Bill of Rights was introduced in the first Congress of the United States. Representative James Madison first introduced amendments on June 8, 1789, as recorded in: The Congressional Register; or History of the Proceedings and Debates of the First House of Representatives of the United States of America, Namely, New-Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, South-Carolina and Georgia Being the ELEVEN STATES that have Ratified the Constitution of the Government of the United States. https://www.scribd.com/doc/271187763/Congressional-Register-Volume-1-aka-Lloyd-s-Debates-1789 See Madison, on June 8, 1789, at page 414. At the time that the matter of the amendments to the Constitution were taken up in the Congress, there were ELEVEN states in the union, Rhode Island and North Carolina having not ratified the Constitution. The amendments, later called the Bill of Rights, were not introduced at a Constitutional Convention of Framers, but at a congressional committee of the then eleven states of the union.
Because they didn't trust the newly-formed Federal government, and the states refused to support the U.S. Constitution unless it contained a Bill of Rights. The Constitution had been ratified and the new government had been formed before the amendments to become the Bill of Rights were introduced in the first House of Representatives by Representative Madison on June 8, 1789.
#15. To: nolu chan (#8) Citizens may possess tanks, SAMs, flame throwers and machine guns if they have a proper license to possess them. When citizens have to get permission from their governments to possess tanks, SAMs, flamethrowers and machine guns, they do not have rights but instead as you are plainly stating it, they have privileges...not rights. And this is also wrong. In a society where only a privileged few can possess such artillery and machine guns, the rest of those citizens are not free. You don't get the government to grant you a privilege for something you already have ...and that is a personal Right. You do not license rights....only privileges. Either that Right exist or it doesn't.
#16. To: misterwhite (#2) If I was your neighbor. You can bet your ass I'd have a cannon pointed at your house 247!
#17. To: A K A Stone (#16) If I was your neighbor. You can bet your ass I'd have a cannon pointed at your house 247! Assuming all your "imagination" came to fruition, I think you would load the cannon with another Pant load; worthless bullshit in other words.
#18. To: A K A Stone (#16) If I was your neighbor. You can bet your ass I'd have a cannon pointed at your house 247! That's why you can't have one. When they do a background check on you it states, "No cannon for you!"
#19. To: goldilucky (#15) In a society where only a privileged few can possess such artillery and machine guns, the rest of those citizens are not free. The federal government cannot prevent states from possessing such armament. You're free if you trust your state. The Founders did.
#20. To: nolu chan (#14) So you're sayng the Founders trusted the newly-formed Federal government so much that they were willing to rely on them to protect the right of ordinary citizens to keep and bear arms? Hah! Yeah, you did. When I asked and answered my question, "So what protects the individual right to keep and bear arms? State constitutions", you replied, "The Federal Constitution."
#21. To: nolu chan (#14) The Constitution had been ratified and the new government had been formed before the amendments to become the Bill of Rights were introduced in the first House of Representatives by Representative Madison on June 8, 1789. More correctly, "The Constitution had been ratified and the new government had been formed because the amendments to become the Bill of Rights were promised by Representative Madison".
#22. To: nolu chan (#14) (Edited) As you said, the Federal government was not given the power to in interfere with State militias or the arms of their members -- yet the Founders wrote the second amendment anyways. Oh, please. It that your argument? Nitpicking wordplay? You acknowledged that the second amendment "identifies a power that has not been delegated". Meaning, the U.S. Constitution did not give the Federal government the power to disband the State militias and confiscate their arms. Yet James Madison wrote the second amendment anyways and the Founders/Framers signed it.
#23. To: goldilucky (#4) Yes, you can have ordinary citizens with tanks, SAMs, flame throwers and machine guns. Title 10 Section 311 Part (b) 2 says this quite clearly Title 10 Section 311 Part(b)2 refers to the "unorganized militia" of a state. Currently, 21 States have State Defense Forces (also called State Military, State Guards, or State Military Reserves), authorized by state and federal law and under the command of the governor of each state. State Defense Forces are distinct from their state's National Guard in that they cannot become federal entities. I am not aware that any State Defense Force allows their personnel to own SAMs, machine guns, or flamethrowers.
#24. To: misterwhite (#19) The federal government cannot prevent states from possessing such armament. You're free if you trust your state. The Founders did. You are not free if you trust your state. The founders did not create states for people to depend on If this were the case, we'd be living under Communism.
#25. To: misterwhite (#23) I am not aware that any State Defense Force allows their personnel to own SAMs, machine guns, or flamethrowers. That's because you are not aware that Title 10 Section 311 (b) (2) applies to the John Q. Public in general. And you should be aware of its existence because it has been in the books for a long time. You state the following: Title 10 Section 311 Part(b)2 refers to the "unorganized militia" of a state. Currently, 21 States have State Defense Forces (also called State Military, State Guards, or State Military Reserves), authorized by state and federal law and under the command of the governor of each state. What you are referring to is Title 10 Section 311 (a) in reference to the professional standing army. This section is reserved for the professional standing army only. In our Bill of Rights, the purpose of referring to Title 10 Section 311 (b)(2) is to prevent violations of the Third Amendment from happening on private property. We see this happening a lot but the US Supreme Court does not discuss the importance of the Third Amendment regarding quartering of US troops and professional standing armies on private property. No, the founding fathers did not want for professional standing armies to be used on private property. An example of this was the 1992 Ruby Ridge case.
#26. To: misterwhite (#22)
Because they didn't trust the newly-formed Federal government, and the states refused to support the U.S. Constitution unless it contained a Bill of Rights. The Constitution, as ratified, flatly did not contain a Bill of Rights.
As you said, the Federal government was not given the power to interfere with State militias or the arms of their members -- yet the Founders wrote the second amendment anyways. Neither the Founders nor Framers wrote the Second Amendment. It was a product of the first U.S. Congress. It was not an initiative of the people, as was the Constitution written at a convention, it was an initiative of the Federal legislature. The Second Amendment to the Federal Constitution protects the individual right to keeep and bear arms.
So you're sayng the Founders trusted the newly-formed Federal government so much that they were willing to rely on them to protect the right of ordinary citizens to keep and bear arms? Hah! I documented that they relied on the United States legislature to draft the Bill of Rights and offer it to the States for ratification.
#27. To: goldilucky (#25) What you are referring to is Title 10 Section 311 (a) in reference to the professional standing army. No. Title 10 Section 311 (a) refers to the members of the militia. Title 10 Section 311(b)(1) refers to the National Guard. Title 10 Section 311(b)(2) refers to the unorganized militia (e.g., State Defense Forces).
#28. To: nolu chan (#26) Neither the Founders nor Framers wrote the Second Amendment. Did I say they did? I think we all know James Madison (a Founding Father) wrote the second amendment and introduced it to Congress. Because the Federal government wasn't to be trusted. Which was my point.
#29. To: goldilucky, misterwhite (#25) That's because you are not aware that Title 10 Section 311 (b) (2) applies to the John Q. Public in general. And you should be aware of its existence because it has been in the books for a long time. You do not know what you are talking about. 10 U.S.C. § 311 pertains to the militia. And no, the militia is not the regular troops or standing army. No part of 10 U.S.C. § 311 pertains to the regular troops or standing army.
Militia. The body of citizens in a state, enrolled for discipline as a military force, but not engaged in actual service except in emergencies, as distinguished from regular troops or a standing army. Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed. To become a member of the active duty U.S. Armed Forces, one must sign up to join. To become a member of the militia, one must be the requisite age.
Army. Armed forces of a nation intended for military service on land. Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.
Navy. A fleet of ships; the aggregate of vessels of war belonging to a nation. In a broader sense, and as the equivalent to "naval forces," the entire corps of officers and men enlisted in the naval service and who man the public ships of war, including in this sense, the officers and men of the Marine Corps. Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed The regular armed forces consists of persons who have been commissioned (officers) or who have enlisted (members). To become part of the regular armed forces, you obtain a commission or enlist. To become part of the militia, or to cease being part of the militia, you have a birthday.
#30. To: misterwhite, goldilucky (#23) I am not aware that any State Defense Force allows their personnel to own SAMs, machine guns, or flamethrowers. I am unaware of any military base that allows active duty military living on base to have their own private SAMs, machine guns, or flamethrowers. Except for authorized persons with authorized weapons, on base personnel are not authorized to be armed, concealed carry or otherwise. One cannot transport their private gun onto a base in their vehicle either.
#31. To: misterwhite (#28) (Edited) Neither the Founders nor Framers wrote the Second Amendment. Yeah, you did, and I quoted you saying it. I'll quote you again and bold face it so you can see it.
[misterwhite #11] As you said, the Federal government was not given the power to interfere with State militias or the arms of their members -- yet the Founders wrote the second amendment anyways. Because they didn't trust the newly-formed Federal government, and the states refused to support the U.S. Constitution unless it contained a Bill of Rights. Neither the Founders, nor the Framers, wrote the Bill of Rights. It was written in the U.S. Congress. The states ratified the Constitution and Washington was inaugurated, and the new government was formed without a Bill of Rights in existence.
#32. To: nolu chan (#30) I believe he's thinking private paramilitary groups like the Michigan Militia (Wolverines) qualify as the "unorganized militia" and are protected by the second amendment.
#33. To: nolu chan (#31) yet the Founders wrote the second amendment anyways. Fine. Yet the Founders And it wasn't written in the U.S. Congress. It was written by Founding Father James Madison, modified, and passed by the U.S. Congress.
#34. To: nolu chan (#31) and the new government was formed without a Bill of Rights in existence. So? Madison promised that one would follow. They believed him and he delivered.
#35. To: misterwhite (#33)
Yet the Founders The Founders held a revolution. They did not include the second amendment in the Declaration of Independence or Articles of Confederation. The Framers attended a Constitutional Convention and crafted the text of the original Constitution, as ratified, with NO amendments. Representative Madison, as a member of Congress, initiated the process of calling for drafting of amendments by the Congress. Madison's congressional campaign pledge to introduce amendments to the Constitution came after ratification. He was not running for Congress before there was a Constitution. Madison was the primary author of most of the amendments that were adopted as the Bill of Rights, but what Madison proposed is not what came out of the congressional sausage machine. His draft was amended in the House, further amended in the Senate, further amended by the House-Senate Conference Committee, and the Committee issued a report with their final draft. It was written in the Congress. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights
Proposal and ratification - - - - - - - - - -
James Madison's proposed amendments to the Constitution:[49] - - - - - - - - - -
Federalist representatives were quick to attack Madison's proposal, fearing that any move to amend the new Constitution so soon after its implementation would create an appearance of instability in the government.[50] The House, unlike the Senate, was open to the public, and members such as Fisher Ames warned that a prolonged "dissection of the constitution" before the galleries could shake public confidence.[51] A procedural battle followed, and after initially forwarding the amendments to a select committee for revision, the House agreed to take Madison's proposal up as a full body beginning on July 21, 1789.[52][53]
#36. To: misterwhite (#34) So? Madison promised that one would follow. They believed him and he delivered. Madison's promise came as a campaign pledge while running for Congress against James Monroe. That is after the Constitution was ratified.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights
Proposal and ratification
#37. To: nolu chan (#35) My point was that they did not trust the federal government. The BOR is proof of that.
#38. To: misterwhite (#37)
My point was that they did not trust the federal government. The BOR is proof of that. In your dreams. The Congressional Register, on the amendments, holds otherwise. Congressional Register, Vol. 2, p. 107 July 21, 1789 Mr. GERRY
He wished gentlemen to consider the situation of the states—seven out of thirteen had thought the constitution very defective, yet five of them has adopted it with a perfect reliance on congress for its improvement.... "A perfect reliance on the congress." "A perfect reliance on the congress." One more time. "A perfect reliance on the congress." Or, as you put it at #11,
the states refused to support the U.S. Constitution unless it contained a Bill of Rights.
#39. To: misterwhite (#32) I believe he's thinking private paramilitary groups like the Michigan Militia (Wolverines) qualify as the "unorganized militia" and are protected by the second amendment. The 2nd Amendment protects the RKBA of individuals and is not restricted to militia or any other group. Individuals in the Wolverines are protected by the 2nd Amendment. However, the RKBA has never protected some imaginary right to bear RPGs, SAMs, machine guns, or flamethrowers. That was not the right enjoyed under English common law by the colonists, and is not the right they brought forward with them into the United States.
#40. To: nolu chan (#38) He wished gentlemen to consider the situation of the states—seven out of thirteen had thought the constitution very defective, yet five of them has adopted it with a perfect reliance on congress for its improvement.... As I said, they didn't like it but they trusted Madison to add a Bill of Rights.
#41. To: nolu chan (#39) "The 2nd Amendment protects the RKBA of individuals and is not restricted to militia or any other group." That's how the Heller court ruled, yes. They were wrong, but that's their ruling. "However, the RKBA has never protected some imaginary right to bear RPGs, SAMs, machine guns, or flamethrowers." Not even for the well-regulated and organized State militias? I seem to recall that Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16 calls for "organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia." We're going to have a dificult time protecting ourselves from an out-of-control Federal government with just the handguns protected by Heller.
#42. To: misterwhite (#41) We're going to have a dificult time protecting ourselves from an out-of-control Federal government with just the handguns protected by Heller. You're going to have a difficult time period with just the fact that right now there are millions of seriously armed people in this country that are absolutely not members of the organized professional standing army. And I can tell you this, that for those like yourselves and others who stand only for an organized trained militia, there will come a time when you will need the backing of those "untrained" ones. I see that coming soon because this country is long overdue for a revolution.
#43. To: goldilucky (#42) You're going to have a difficult time period with just the fact that right now there are millions of seriously armed people in this country that are absolutely not members of the organized professional standing army. What happens when some future U.S. Supreme Court rules that the second amendment doesn't protect hanguns? Or assault rifles? Do you trust them or your own state to protect your gun rights?
#44. To: misterwhite (#40) As I said, they didn't like it but they trusted Madison to add a Bill of Rights. It took both houses of Congress and 3/4th of the states to add any amendment. Madison had one vote in the House and no say in the Senate.
#45. To: misterwhite (#41)
That's how the Heller court ruled, yes. They were wrong, but that's their ruling. The Supreme court determines the law. You are entitled to your opinion, but that does not change the law. Individuals in and out of the militia have the rights to keep and bear arms brought forward by the colonists into America, and the right is protected by the 2nd Amendment. The ancient right came from English common law and predates the Constitution.
Not even for the well-regulated and organized State militias? I seem to recall that Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16 calls for "organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia." What arms meant in 1792 is amply described below. It does not expand to any weapon imaginable. The right was not defined in the Constitution because it was well-defined in English common law. The Militia Act of May 8, 1792 (repealed and replaced 1795).
SECOND CONGRESS. Sess. I. Ch. 33. 1792.
#46. To: nolu chan (#45) The Supreme court determines the law. You are entitled to your opinion, but that does not change the law. The Heller Supreme court determines the law? Or the Cruikshank Supreme court? Or the Presser Supreme Court? Or the Miller Supreme court? Seems to me the only reason you like the Heller decision is because it supports your view. I guess those justices never heard of stare decisis.
#47. To: misterwhite (#46) The Heller Supreme court determines the law? Or the Cruikshank Supreme court? Or the Presser Supreme Court? Or the Miller Supreme court? I'm sorry you must make believe you do not know.
#48. To: nolu chan (#45) Individuals in and out of the militia have the rights to keep and bear arms brought forward by the colonists into America, and the right is protected by the 2nd Amendment. The second amendment protected the right of the people to keep and bear arms, not all individuals. The second amendment didn't protect the right for non-citizens, children, women, slaves, or illegals. When you examine it (as I have) it only protected the right for those eligible to participate in a state militia. What a coincidence, huh? And the second amendment references a militia! Another coincidence! Yet you expect me to believe it applies to all individuals.
#49. To: goldilucky, Y'ALL (#42) misterwhite (#41) ---- We're going to have a dificult time protecting ourselves from an out-of-control Federal government with just the handguns protected by Heller. Well done, Goldilucky.. ---- You're one of the many here that have come to realize how our resident closet communitarian, misterwhite, spreads his anti- constitutional agitprop.. Keep up the good work.. This guy is (and has been since the early days of FR) a ringer troll, a near perfect example of 'deep state' thinking.
#50. To: nolu chan (#47) I'm sorry you must make believe you do not know. As I said. That's how the Heller court ruled, but I don't agree. Those three cases support my view.
#51. To: nolu chan (#45) That every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock Do you know why they had to get a musket? Because they didn't have one. They had rifles for hunting because smoothbore muskets were not accurate. Now, muskets were fine for volley fire used by the militia, they were cheap, and they were fast reloading. But above the fireplace in the home, proudly displayed, was an expensive rifle. So what is it? Does the second amendment protect arms in common use at the time (rifles) or does it protect the arms used by the militia (muskets)?
. . . Comments (52 - 421) not displayed. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|