danielpalos
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #201
Josf,
I am not sure what you mean. There are no Individual Rights declared in our Second Article of Amendment without appealing to ignorance of the first clause and the law as a result.
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 first clause clearly establishes the context for the second clause; should there be Any need to quibble in legal venues.
In any Case, the first clause can Only be safely ignored if our Second Amendment had been stated thusly, "A well regulated militia being unnecessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." in order for the subject and the object to agree. Then, there would have been some color for the interpretation rendered.
The People and the Militia are synonymous. Thus, Only well regulated militias of the People may not be Infringed due to their necessity to the security of a free State; not rights in private property.
Here is a State supreme law of the land for comparison and contrast:
Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
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.
Both clearly state that some sort of regulation (i.e. police power) is available and necessary and proper.
And, that is besides the point of the subject of Arms being socialized for the militia in Article 1, Section 8.
I am not sure what you mean. There are no Individual Rights declared in our Second Article of Amendment without appealing to ignorance of the first clause and the law as a result.
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 first clause clearly establishes the context for the second clause; should there be Any need to quibble in legal venues.
In any Case, the first clause can Only be safely ignored if our Second Amendment had been stated thusly, "A well regulated militia being unnecessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." in order for the subject and the object to agree. Then, there would have been some color for the interpretation rendered.
The People and the Militia are synonymous. Thus, Only well regulated militias of the People may not be Infringed due to their necessity to the security of a free State; not rights in private property.
Here is a State supreme law of the land for comparison and contrast:
Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
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.
Both clearly state that some sort of regulation (i.e. police power) is available and necessary and proper.
And, that is besides the point of the subject of Arms being socialized for the militia in Article 1, Section 8.