2nd Amendment, Scalia and what the Founders meant: Commas, Common Sense and Justice. The question is how to interpret the comma after 'free state.'

I can substantiate my statements. You're just blowing smoke.
Bullshit. You've been proven wrong multiple times in this very thread, and then you trot out more lies.

You're quite literally the most dishonest poster I have seen in a very, very long time.
 
No it doesn't you ridiculous clod. The militia was ALWAYS recognized as independent of the Federal government.
Perpich v. Department of Defense, 496 U.S. 334 (1990) so states:
"Two conflicting themes are apparent from the phrases of the second Militia Clause: complementarily, a partnership between the States and the Federal Government, and subordinately, the supremacy of federal power in the area of military affairs...

The two parts of the Clause are consistent with the view that the Framers anticipated that the militia would be trained according to federal standards, but that the training itself would be conducted by state officers. The congressional power 'To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia' is, in terms, quite broad."


Your insults discredit you. Either you can substantiate your claim or you cannot.
 
clearly you haven't read the post to which you are responding given that your point is irrelevant.
You mean the one where you omit the the important part?

Lying by omission is still lying.
 
Bullshit. You've been proven wrong multiple times in this very thread, and then you trot out more lies.

You're quite literally the most dishonest poster I have seen in a very, very long time.
You haven't proven anything. I can substantiate my claims. Your rants do not rise above vacuous drivel.
In fact, your comments are utterly incompetent from a legal, historical and constitutional standard.
 
the second is an individual right with no requirement one be in the militia. But as to the Militia by federal laq that is everyone able bodied that is 17 to 45. If you bar them from weapons that violates the militia act.

Perpich v. Department of Defense, 496 U.S. 334 (1990) so states in the majority opinion:

"Two conflicting themes are apparent from the phrases of the second Militia Clause: complementarily, a partnership between the States and the Federal Government, and subordinately, the supremacy of federal power in the area of military affairs...

The two parts of the Clause are consistent with the view that the Framers anticipated that the militia would be trained according to federal standards, but that the training itself would be conducted by state officers. The congressional power 'To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia' is, in terms, quite broad."


A the pre-Heller “militia-centric” reading of the Second Amendment does not mean private citizens could not own firearms. It means the constitutional right, as pre-Heller Supreme Court doctrine was often understood, was tied to militia-related purposes rather than a freestanding individual self-defense right. Where I think second amendment advocates get confused is that they think pre heller, that the second amendment's 'right' guaranteed men and women outside of the militia gun ownership. It is just that although it wasn't a broad unlimited individual right, individuals were not banned from owning guns no more than they were banned from owning horses, chickens, and cows. Unless, of course, towns and cities banned certain guns, which many throughout the west, historically through the 19th century up to before Heller, they did.

IOW, proof is the degree of regulation that existed before Heller, that became moot after Heller.
 
You haven't proven anything. I can substantiate my claims. Your rants do not rise above vacuous drivel.
In fact, your comments are utterly incompetent from a legal, historical and constitutional standard.
That's funny, because it sounds like the Westwall I know too.
 
Back
Top Bottom