Why doesn't the DOJ Civil Rights Division defend the 2nd?

[woodwork201]

According to the US Department of Justice website "The Civil Rights Division protects the civil and constitutional rights of all people in this country, enforcing the Constitution and federal laws of the United States in pursuit of our founding ideals – fundamental fairness, equal justice, and equal opportunity for all.".

So why doesn't the division litigate against states and other units of government in the defense of the 2nd amendment?

Civil Rights Division

www.justice.gov

Prosecute violations of criminal statutes that prohibit specified acts of interference with federally protected rights and activities

I know:

"the treatment of the Second Amendment as a disfavored right" - Justice Thomas

They don't defend the 1st, the 4th, or the 5th, either. Or the 6th, 7th, and 8th, for that matter.

 

[woodwork201]

People STILL had to sign up, voluntarily or be drafted.
They had to be recognized, as part of the state's militia.

No they didn't. The Sergeants, Lieutenants, and Captains were required to identify and collect the names of every eligible man and that was what put them in the militia. Failure to appear for musters was a crime. Failure of the Lieutenant or Captain to report to the courts martial any failures to muster was a bigger crime with bigger penalties.

They were part of the militia by virtue of breathing the air in their county. The only exceptions were blacks, slaves, indians, and a very, very, short list of government officials.

 

[woodwork201]

English tutor here.
The ppl are the militia.
The term is used to make it clear that we have a duty to organize against the govt.
I charge $20/hour.

You're absolutely right. You need to increase your price by about 3 times, at least (which is still ridiculously low for the value of the work) .

Here's some supplemental info on the topic:

https://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/vol126_the_people_in_the_constitution.pdf

 

[woodwork201]

in those days of yore, militias were composed of able-bodied males, ages 16-45, (57 in some states), no females, no one under the age of 16, no one infirm, physically or mentally. so when they wrote the 2nd, they included ALL, not just those qualified to be in a militia.

I think her point is that the militia has nothing to do with it. That's a preamble. Preambles were very common in law and constitutions in the founding era. Preambles may not limit the meaning of the words of the law or right unless the words are so vague and unclear that the only way to help interpret the words is to apply the preamble.

This is from F. Dwarris, A General Treatise on the Statutes, 1871. It was quoted correctly in the Heller decision.

To really understand Heller, it's important to read every citation, and to follow the citation to at least two levels. Capture/download all of the citations because if you're really going to understand Heller you're going to be reading a lot of this material - and besides that, they're all very interesting and informative. You will learn much more than just Heller. You'll learn that Scalia really was a gun controller.

 

[woodwork201]

we are, i''m sure, nut

Auld Phart in colonial times a 16 year old man was not a boy but they certainly are today in most cases.

i generally agree on nearly all of this "everybody is in the mulitia" meme as long as we can exclude felons, children the insane and the dangerous to themselves or others as determined by a local judge or commissioned miitary officer.

Just as soon as you find those exclusions in the laws of 1791, you can claim to be right. Until then (that means until forever) you're wrong.

 

[rampart]

They don't defend the 1st, the 4th, or the 5th, either. Or the 6th, 7th, and 8th, for that matter.

there are plenty of advocates for every amendment, the first 10 in particular.

to determine why a government office or agency does or does not do anything, please check the law authorizing the agency and its funding, available on line.

the "civil rights division" was created by congress to enforce several specific laws. in democratic administrations that is what they do.

lord knows what clarence thomas as director or whoever trump's absentee billionaire might have been. .

 

[rampart]

I think her point is that the militia has nothing to do with it. That's a preamble. Preambles were very common in law and constitutions in the founding era. Preambles may not limit the meaning of the words of the law or right unless the words are so vague and unclear that the only way to help interpret the words is to apply the preamble.

This is from F. Dwarris, A General Treatise on the Statutes, 1871. It was quoted correctly in the Heller decision.

To really understand Heller, it's important to read every citation, and to follow the citation to at least two levels. Capture/download all of the citations because if you're really going to understand Heller you're going to be reading a lot of this material - and besides that, they're all very interesting and informative. You will learn much more than just Heller. You'll learn that Scalia really was a gun controller.

the words are vague and unclear enough to require interpretation in heller, yet clear enough not to require 1/2 the amendment be viewed as a sentence?

maybe we should give up english as a legal language and return to latin?,

because i think that those classes obviously not covered by the second (Auld Phart list able-bodied males, ages 16-45, (57 in some states), no females, no one under the age of 16, no one infirm, physically or mentally. plus the obnious natine americans and slaves.))

so when they wrote the 2nd, "original intent" , would exclude many of these school shooters and general trouble makers.

in dodge city, the gunfree zone, the "dead line" was named appropriately and enforced, with extreme prejudice, by wtatt earp. did anyone appeal his decisions?

 

[Smokin' OP]

No they didn't.

Yes, they did.

The Sergeants, Lieutenants, and Captains were required to identify and collect the names of every eligible man and that was what put them in the militia. Failure to appear for musters was a crime. Failure of the Lieutenant or Captain to report to the courts martial any failures to muster was a bigger crime with bigger penalties.

Correct.

They were part of the militia by virtue of breathing the air in their county.

That's true, they were drafted, just like the people were drafted for the Vietnam war.

They could not form their own rogue militia's.
If Franklin county Virginia had a militia, people couldn't form a separate Penhook or Redwood militia, they would be absorbed into the Franklin county militia, by virtue of a draft.
Just as the Franklin county militia may be absorbed into the Virginia militia.

The only exceptions were blacks, slaves, indians, and a very, very, short list of government officials.

 

[M14 Shooter]

That's what the teabagger court claimed.

No, son.
That's what the court ruled.
That means it is a fact of law.
Any argument you make w/o recognition of that fact is unsound.

Carry on.

 

[M14 Shooter]

What part of "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" do you not understand?

The part where you think it is relevant.

The militia:
All males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

www.law.cornell.edu

The people:
A class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.

UNITED STATES, Petitioner v. Rene Martin VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ.

www.law.cornell.edu

Who holds the right which falls under the protection of the 2nd?

 

[Smokin' OP]

No, son.
That's what the court ruled.
That means it is a fact of law.
Any argument you make w/o recognition of that fact is unsound.

Carry on.

Like I said.
They disregarded the first part.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"............

PRECURSOR Definition & Usage Examples​

Dictionary.com
https://www.dictionary.com › browse › precursors'
precursor · a person or thing that precedes, as in a job, a method, etc.; predecessor. · a person, animal, or thing that goes before and indicates the approach of ...

 

[Smokin' OP]

The part where you think it is relevant.

So, why did they put it in the very first part of the amendment?

The militia:
All males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

www.law.cornell.edu

The people:
A class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.

UNITED STATES, Petitioner v. Rene Martin VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ.

www.law.cornell.edu

Who holds the right which falls under the protection of the 2nd?

When it was written in 1791, women, black people and catholics weren't allowed to own guns.

 

[rampart]

Yes, they did.

Correct.

That's true, they were drafted, just like the people were drafted for the Vietnam war.

They could not form their own rogue militia's.
If Franklin county Virginia had a militia, people couldn't form a separate Penhook or Redwood militia, they would be absorbed into the Franklin county militia, by virtue of a draft.
Just as the Franklin county militia may be absorbed into the Virginia militia.

"well regulated" appears to have been a typo or something that the founders wrote to "pwn the libs? "

those colonial militia captains and sgts would take one look as these cosplay bozos and break their damn flintlocks over their ears. .........

 

[Smokin' OP]

"well regulated" appears to have been a typo or something that the founders wrote to "pwn the libs? "

those colonial militia captains and sgts would take one look as these cosplay bozos and break their damn flintlocks over their ears. .........

It appears they took the Trump U. constitutional "law" school correspondence course.

 

[Auld Phart]

It appears they took the Trump U. constitutional "law" school correspondence course.

why do you 'Constitutional Scholars' ignore the fact the right was given to the People, not the militia?

 

[Smokin' OP]

why do you 'Constitutional Scholars' ignore the fact the right was given to the People, not the militia?

WTF?
Ignore the fact?
The people IN the militia.
That's why they included "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"........ FIRST.

 

[rampart]

why do you 'Constitutional Scholars' ignore the fact the right was given to the People, not the militia?

i own a gun or 2 . they are tools that, used in an unsafe manner, can harm their user and others, but do provide a measure of deterrence (or at least the illusion of possible deterrence) in hurricane aftermaths and such.

other personal rights, far older than the invention of gunpowder,
: free speech, practice of religion, assembly are constitutionally protected but bounded by law, common sense, and the "necessary and proper" clause of art 1.

 

[Auld Phart]

WTF?
Ignore the fact?
The people IN the militia.
That's why they included "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"........ FIRST.

where does it state the people IN the militia?

 

[Smokin' OP]

where does it state the people IN the militia?

WTF?
Can you read?
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State".

In order to drive a vehicle, do you need to FIRST................... START the vehicle?

Maybe not.

 

[Auld Phart]

WTF?
Can you read?
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State".

In order to drive a vehicle, do you need to FIRST................... START the vehicle?

Maybe not.

View attachment 931492

can you?

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.[32]"

it states the right of the people.

not the right of the militia,

not the right of the people IN the militia.

the PEOPLE.