What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Assault Weapons Ban would be unconstitutional. "A State Militia must be maintained and well regulated"

9thIDdoc

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2011
Messages
7,197
Reaction score
2,499
Points
325
They eventually want to confiscate all rifles and handguns from all citizens somewhere down the road.

And I want an Angel on a Gold Chain that I can ride to the Stars, but that ain't happening either!

The UN has no military to carry out such a dream.
The United States constitution clearly states that a "States militia must be well regulated and maintained." A weapon of a "States militia" is an assault rifle. Any ban would violate the United States constitution.

The National Guard has many assault rifles and many other cool weapons. They are the State Militias, who were always ultimately under the command of the CiC. Not the private gun clubs.

"A well regulated Militia," means trained in the art of war.

A "militia" is comprised of civilians whom are NOT under the command of government. We all learned that by third grade...you didn't?

That is known as a private militia, and all 50 states have laws making them illegal.
Untrue. The Constitution makes them legal in all 50 States. You are dreaming.

The constitution make sewing clubs for Grandma legal too. Gun Clubs are free to call themselves militia's but they have no legal authority to act as part of the US military chain of command.
By definition militias are not part of the US military chain of command. They can become part of the US military chain of command but then they are regular government troops rather than militia.
 

BlindBoo

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2010
Messages
37,725
Reaction score
6,396
Points
1,130
They eventually want to confiscate all rifles and handguns from all citizens somewhere down the road.

And I want an Angel on a Gold Chain that I can ride to the Stars, but that ain't happening either!

The UN has no military to carry out such a dream.
The United States constitution clearly states that a "States militia must be well regulated and maintained." A weapon of a "States militia" is an assault rifle. Any ban would violate the United States constitution.

The National Guard has many assault rifles and many other cool weapons. They are the State Militias, who were always ultimately under the command of the CiC. Not the private gun clubs.

"A well regulated Militia," means trained in the art of war.

A "militia" is comprised of civilians whom are NOT under the command of government. We all learned that by third grade...you didn't?

That is known as a private militia, and all 50 states have laws making them illegal.
Untrue. The Constitution makes them legal in all 50 States. You are dreaming.

The constitution make sewing clubs for Grandma legal too. Gun Clubs are free to call themselves militia's but they have no legal authority to act as part of the US military chain of command.

Again, government educated failure, militias are an explanation for the second amendment, not a limitation on it.

You'd know that if you could read

I understand it's one of those Truthiness things for you, you just feel it's true, deep down in yer gut!
 

BlindBoo

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2010
Messages
37,725
Reaction score
6,396
Points
1,130
They eventually want to confiscate all rifles and handguns from all citizens somewhere down the road.

And I want an Angel on a Gold Chain that I can ride to the Stars, but that ain't happening either!

The UN has no military to carry out such a dream.
The United States constitution clearly states that a "States militia must be well regulated and maintained." A weapon of a "States militia" is an assault rifle. Any ban would violate the United States constitution.

The National Guard has many assault rifles and many other cool weapons. They are the State Militias, who were always ultimately under the command of the CiC. Not the private gun clubs.

"A well regulated Militia," means trained in the art of war.

A "militia" is comprised of civilians whom are NOT under the command of government. We all learned that by third grade...you didn't?

That is known as a private militia, and all 50 states have laws making them illegal.
Untrue. The Constitution makes them legal in all 50 States. You are dreaming.

The constitution make sewing clubs for Grandma legal too. Gun Clubs are free to call themselves militia's but they have no legal authority to act as part of the US military chain of command.
By definition militias are not part of the US military chain of command. They can become part of the US military chain of command but then they are regular government troops rather than militia.

The chain of command went through the Governors because we had no national standing army.

"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

 

9thIDdoc

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2011
Messages
7,197
Reaction score
2,499
Points
325
They eventually want to confiscate all rifles and handguns from all citizens somewhere down the road.

And I want an Angel on a Gold Chain that I can ride to the Stars, but that ain't happening either!

The UN has no military to carry out such a dream.
The United States constitution clearly states that a "States militia must be well regulated and maintained." A weapon of a "States militia" is an assault rifle. Any ban would violate the United States constitution.

The National Guard has many assault rifles and many other cool weapons. They are the State Militias, who were always ultimately under the command of the CiC. Not the private gun clubs.

"A well regulated Militia," means trained in the art of war.

A "militia" is comprised of civilians whom are NOT under the command of government. We all learned that by third grade...you didn't?

That is known as a private militia, and all 50 states have laws making them illegal.
Untrue. The Constitution makes them legal in all 50 States. You are dreaming.

The constitution make sewing clubs for Grandma legal too. Gun Clubs are free to call themselves militia's but they have no legal authority to act as part of the US military chain of command.
By definition militias are not part of the US military chain of command. They can become part of the US military chain of command but then they are regular government troops rather than militia.

The chain of command went through the Governors because we had no national standing army.

"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia,
The GOP Has a Problem: My Generation Isn't Conservative

, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

"... and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States,..."

What part of that do you not understand? Militias may become regular government troops. Including State government troops at which time they become subject to the authority of that government and are no longer actually militia.
 

BlindBoo

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2010
Messages
37,725
Reaction score
6,396
Points
1,130
They eventually want to confiscate all rifles and handguns from all citizens somewhere down the road.

And I want an Angel on a Gold Chain that I can ride to the Stars, but that ain't happening either!

The UN has no military to carry out such a dream.
The United States constitution clearly states that a "States militia must be well regulated and maintained." A weapon of a "States militia" is an assault rifle. Any ban would violate the United States constitution.

The National Guard has many assault rifles and many other cool weapons. They are the State Militias, who were always ultimately under the command of the CiC. Not the private gun clubs.

"A well regulated Militia," means trained in the art of war.

A "militia" is comprised of civilians whom are NOT under the command of government. We all learned that by third grade...you didn't?

That is known as a private militia, and all 50 states have laws making them illegal.
Untrue. The Constitution makes them legal in all 50 States. You are dreaming.

The constitution make sewing clubs for Grandma legal too. Gun Clubs are free to call themselves militia's but they have no legal authority to act as part of the US military chain of command.
By definition militias are not part of the US military chain of command. They can become part of the US military chain of command but then they are regular government troops rather than militia.

The chain of command went through the Governors because we had no national standing army.

"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia,
The GOP Has a Problem: My Generation Isn't Conservative

, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

"... and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States,..."

What part of that do you not understand? Militias may become regular government troops. Including State government troops at which time they become subject to the authority of that government and are no longer actually militia.

It's meaningless without " reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; "

The States Governors were in charge of the Militias. They were not random groups of armed citizens who decide to play weekend soldier once in a while and call themselves "The Militia".

A lot has changed in warfare technology since then but the power structure over the militias, aka States National Guard, still starts with the Governors.
 

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
87,774
Reaction score
27,397
Points
2,250
From:
The Supreme Court & the Second Amendment | Giffords

"In its decision, authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court was careful to stress the limited nature of its ruling. Writing for the majority, Justice Scalia noted: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”


And you guys always cite that tiny portion of Heller in order to say it lets you ban or confiscate anything you want......what you fail to point out, is the rest of what Scalia wrote in Heller, and what he also wrote in his dissent on the court refusing to hear Friedman v Highland park....then we can point out what Alito wrote in the ruling on Caetano v Massachusetts

Heller...the parts you guys never quote....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001),



the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.



Friedman v Highland Park..

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf

The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.


A more detailed quote from Friedman...

Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered “whether lawabiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,” and reasoned that the City’s ban was permissible because “f criminals can find substitutes for banned assault weapons, then so can law-abiding homeowners.” 784 F. 3d, at 410, 411.

Although the court recognized that “Heller held that the availability of long guns does not save a ban on handgun ownership,” it thought that “Heller did not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of most long guns plus pistols and revolvers . . . gives householders adequate means of defense.” Id., at 411.

That analysis misreads Heller.

The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629.

And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.

The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.


The Seventh Circuit ultimately upheld a ban on many common semiautomatic firearms based on speculation about the law’s potential policy benefits. See 784 F. 3d, at 411–412. The court conceded that handguns—not “assault weapons”—“are responsible for the vast majority of gun violence in the United States.” Id., at 409.

Still, the court concluded, the ordinance “may increase the public’s sense of safety,” which alone is “a substantial benefit.” Id., at 412.



Heller, however, forbids subjecting the Second Amendment’s “core protection . . . to a freestanding ‘interestbalancing’ approach.”

Heller, supra, at 634. This case illustrates why. If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing.


III
The Court’s refusal to review a decision that flouts two of our Second Amendment precedents stands in marked contrast to the Court’s willingness to summarily reverse courts that disregard our other constitutional decisions.


Caetano v Massachusetts...



Opinion of the Court[edit]



In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

------





As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)). That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment.



First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).



Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.


Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.


Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.




If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis
So in one section Scalia is recognizing that regulations are constitutional. Your counter to that is against those who make the argument that only 18th century weapons are to be protected. That’s a disingenuous argument. Do you accept what Richie posted from Scalia that guns can be regulated to a degree? We can argue about what that degree is later.

I said he only quoted from that tiny part.....what did Scalia say you could actually regulate?

Then I quote where Scalia says that the 2nd Amendment protects all bearable arms.............

the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

Can you keep people from carrying guns? No. You can ban them from sensitive places, schools, and courthouses and you can keep felons and the mentally ill from owning and carrying them....but banning them? No.

And the part you guys always leave out.....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

And then, to repeat...

the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
I’m not talking about specific regulations I’m talking about the concept of regulating which many here are calling unconstitutional. Scalia disagreed that regulating is unconstitutional through that passage in that dissent. You recognize that don’t you?


Wrong....you morons think he allows you to do anything you want, when he limits the scope and actually, in his writing in Friedman v Highland Park, protects the very weapons you want to ban.
I’m not talking about anything “we” want. I’m talking about the simple concept that regulations are not automatically unconstitutional. Nutters can’t accept that but it’s there in black and white. He limited the scope. That means there is a scope. You can admit that right? There is a scope of gun regulations that is constitutional? According to Scalia The government can limit a Persons ability to have whatever kind of gun they want wherever they want. Correct?

The government can limit a Persons ability to have whatever kind of gun they want wherever they want. Correct?

Yes....we get it.....you think that gives you the power to ban anything you want..........which is why you ignore everything else Scalia said about guns, and every other ruling by the court....

Wrong....completely wrong....as this Heller, Miller, Caetano, and Friedman state...

Heller....


the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

Rifles, pistols and shotguns.....all bearable arms, all untouchable.....

Miller....

Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

And before you try the "But....but....AR-15s are dangerous..."

Caetano...




Opinion of the Court[edit]

As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)).

That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment.



First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).



Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly. Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581. Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.



If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis


Friedman...

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

Heller, however, forbids subjecting the Second Amendment’s “core protection . . . to a freestanding ‘interestbalancing’ approach.” Heller, supra, at 634. This case illustrates why. If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing.
 

Donald H

VIP Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2020
Messages
2,101
Reaction score
603
Points
63
Biden could and should allow the slaughter of Americans with their guns to continue. He can bargain it off in trade for the extremely important issues of breaking through the Income inequality that is the American way.

Hundreds or even thousands more school children killed with guns is an apolitical issue at the moment, as long as Biden protrays the illusion of being concerned for the sake of the mommies.
 

BrokeLoser

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2016
Messages
25,591
Reaction score
9,574
Points
910
Location
MEXIFORNIA
They eventually want to confiscate all rifles and handguns from all citizens somewhere down the road.

And I want an Angel on a Gold Chain that I can ride to the Stars, but that ain't happening either!

The UN has no military to carry out such a dream.
The United States constitution clearly states that a "States militia must be well regulated and maintained." A weapon of a "States militia" is an assault rifle. Any ban would violate the United States constitution.

The National Guard has many assault rifles and many other cool weapons. They are the State Militias, who were always ultimately under the command of the CiC. Not the private gun clubs.

"A well regulated Militia," means trained in the art of war.

A "militia" is comprised of civilians whom are NOT under the command of government. We all learned that by third grade...you didn't?

That is known as a private militia, and all 50 states have laws making them illegal.
Untrue. The Constitution makes them legal in all 50 States. You are dreaming.

The constitution make sewing clubs for Grandma legal too. Gun Clubs are free to call themselves militia's but they have no legal authority to act as part of the US military chain of command.
By definition militias are not part of the US military chain of command. They can become part of the US military chain of command but then they are regular government troops rather than militia.

The chain of command went through the Governors because we had no national standing army.

"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia,
The GOP Has a Problem: My Generation Isn't Conservative

, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

"... and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States,..."

What part of that do you not understand? Militias may become regular government troops. Including State government troops at which time they become subject to the authority of that government and are no longer actually militia.

I always find it fascinating when LefTards try like hell to misinterpret their rights...they actually prefer fewer rights...they actually want to be led around by the nose by their Father Government. Twilight Zone shit isn't it BlindBoo ?
 

Slade3200

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
40,903
Reaction score
6,851
Points
1,840
You all know where the U.S. government , and many Politicians are headed. They eventually want to confiscate all rifles and handguns from all citizens somewhere down the road. As part of the United Nations one world government takeover of the entire Earth.New World Order. This is what the Gun control people , and groups won't tell you.
This is a lie.

No it isn't. That's why the new anti-gun laws are going through Congress as we speak. Registration, registration will be public information, etc.
Another lie.

It's right here in HR 127:

First, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives must establish (1) a licensing system for the possession of firearms or ammunition, and (2) a registration system for firearms.

In addition, the Department of Justice (DOJ) must establish and maintain a publicly available database of all registered firearms.


Your Democrat handlers are lying to you.

Clayton is consistent. He'd be perfectly fine with requiring people to register and pay a fee for freedom of speech, protection from warrantless searches of his personal property or having to register to get protection for his religion. Right Clayton?

Wow, if everyone scrambled all Constitutional amendments like you do, this country would be a total mess.

The First Amendment is the First Amendment.

The Second Amendment is the Second Amendment.

They are two completely separate Amendments. This discussion is about the Second Amendment.

Despite your paranoid delusions!

Richard: Cmon kaz, stop talking about my double standards!

My point is about the second amendment. When we change amendment, the giant screeching sound is your standard changing.

When you want something, the Constitution is a sledge hammer. When you don't, the Constitution is toilet paper
Sorry Kaz, Richie is schooling your ass. It’s fun to watch

Wow, another leftist endorsing double standards. Who saw that coming? I mean EVERYBODY ...

LOL
Don’t lie, I didn’t endorse double standards I endorsed Richie schooling your ass

You endorsed Richard endorsing double standards, liar. It's what leftists do, you lie about everything all the time. You're fascists and you're tired of being held to any standard, particularly your own
Oh, interesting logic. Would you also say that people endorsing Trump also endorse finger banging random women without their permission or cheating on your pregnant wife with prostitute porn stars?
 

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
87,774
Reaction score
27,397
Points
2,250
You all know where the U.S. government , and many Politicians are headed. They eventually want to confiscate all rifles and handguns from all citizens somewhere down the road. As part of the United Nations one world government takeover of the entire Earth.New World Order. This is what the Gun control people , and groups won't tell you.
This is a lie.

No it isn't. That's why the new anti-gun laws are going through Congress as we speak. Registration, registration will be public information, etc.
Another lie.

It's right here in HR 127:

First, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives must establish (1) a licensing system for the possession of firearms or ammunition, and (2) a registration system for firearms.

In addition, the Department of Justice (DOJ) must establish and maintain a publicly available database of all registered firearms.


Your Democrat handlers are lying to you.

Clayton is consistent. He'd be perfectly fine with requiring people to register and pay a fee for freedom of speech, protection from warrantless searches of his personal property or having to register to get protection for his religion. Right Clayton?

Wow, if everyone scrambled all Constitutional amendments like you do, this country would be a total mess.

The First Amendment is the First Amendment.

The Second Amendment is the Second Amendment.

They are two completely separate Amendments. This discussion is about the Second Amendment.

Despite your paranoid delusions!

Richard: Cmon kaz, stop talking about my double standards!

My point is about the second amendment. When we change amendment, the giant screeching sound is your standard changing.

When you want something, the Constitution is a sledge hammer. When you don't, the Constitution is toilet paper
Sorry Kaz, Richie is schooling your ass. It’s fun to watch

Wow, another leftist endorsing double standards. Who saw that coming? I mean EVERYBODY ...

LOL
Don’t lie, I didn’t endorse double standards I endorsed Richie schooling your ass

You endorsed Richard endorsing double standards, liar. It's what leftists do, you lie about everything all the time. You're fascists and you're tired of being held to any standard, particularly your own
Oh, interesting logic. Would you also say that people endorsing Trump also endorse finger banging random women without their permission or cheating on your pregnant wife with prostitute porn stars?


"Finger banging?" You mean like joe biden? No, that was actually rape....
 

Slade3200

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
40,903
Reaction score
6,851
Points
1,840
From:
The Supreme Court & the Second Amendment | Giffords

"In its decision, authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court was careful to stress the limited nature of its ruling. Writing for the majority, Justice Scalia noted: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”


And you guys always cite that tiny portion of Heller in order to say it lets you ban or confiscate anything you want......what you fail to point out, is the rest of what Scalia wrote in Heller, and what he also wrote in his dissent on the court refusing to hear Friedman v Highland park....then we can point out what Alito wrote in the ruling on Caetano v Massachusetts

Heller...the parts you guys never quote....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001),



the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.



Friedman v Highland Park..

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf

The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.


A more detailed quote from Friedman...

Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered “whether lawabiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,” and reasoned that the City’s ban was permissible because “f criminals can find substitutes for banned assault weapons, then so can law-abiding homeowners.” 784 F. 3d, at 410, 411.

Although the court recognized that “Heller held that the availability of long guns does not save a ban on handgun ownership,” it thought that “Heller did not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of most long guns plus pistols and revolvers . . . gives householders adequate means of defense.” Id., at 411.

That analysis misreads Heller.

The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629.

And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.

The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.


The Seventh Circuit ultimately upheld a ban on many common semiautomatic firearms based on speculation about the law’s potential policy benefits. See 784 F. 3d, at 411–412. The court conceded that handguns—not “assault weapons”—“are responsible for the vast majority of gun violence in the United States.” Id., at 409.

Still, the court concluded, the ordinance “may increase the public’s sense of safety,” which alone is “a substantial benefit.” Id., at 412.



Heller, however, forbids subjecting the Second Amendment’s “core protection . . . to a freestanding ‘interestbalancing’ approach.”

Heller, supra, at 634. This case illustrates why. If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing.


III
The Court’s refusal to review a decision that flouts two of our Second Amendment precedents stands in marked contrast to the Court’s willingness to summarily reverse courts that disregard our other constitutional decisions.


Caetano v Massachusetts...



Opinion of the Court[edit]



In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

------





As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)). That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment.



First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).



Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.


Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.


Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.




If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis
So in one section Scalia is recognizing that regulations are constitutional. Your counter to that is against those who make the argument that only 18th century weapons are to be protected. That’s a disingenuous argument. Do you accept what Richie posted from Scalia that guns can be regulated to a degree? We can argue about what that degree is later.

I said he only quoted from that tiny part.....what did Scalia say you could actually regulate?

Then I quote where Scalia says that the 2nd Amendment protects all bearable arms.............

the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

Can you keep people from carrying guns? No. You can ban them from sensitive places, schools, and courthouses and you can keep felons and the mentally ill from owning and carrying them....but banning them? No.

And the part you guys always leave out.....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

And then, to repeat...

the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
I’m not talking about specific regulations I’m talking about the concept of regulating which many here are calling unconstitutional. Scalia disagreed that regulating is unconstitutional through that passage in that dissent. You recognize that don’t you?


Wrong....you morons think he allows you to do anything you want, when he limits the scope and actually, in his writing in Friedman v Highland Park, protects the very weapons you want to ban.
I’m not talking about anything “we” want. I’m talking about the simple concept that regulations are not automatically unconstitutional. Nutters can’t accept that but it’s there in black and white. He limited the scope. That means there is a scope. You can admit that right? There is a scope of gun regulations that is constitutional? According to Scalia The government can limit a Persons ability to have whatever kind of gun they want wherever they want. Correct?

The government can limit a Persons ability to have whatever kind of gun they want wherever they want. Correct?

Yes....we get it.....you think that gives you the power to ban anything you want..........which is why you ignore everything else Scalia said about guns, and every other ruling by the court....

Wrong....completely wrong....as this Heller, Miller, Caetano, and Friedman state...

Heller....


the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

Rifles, pistols and shotguns.....all bearable arms, all untouchable.....

Miller....

Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

And before you try the "But....but....AR-15s are dangerous..."

Caetano...




Opinion of the Court[edit]

As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)).

That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment.



First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).



Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly. Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581. Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.



If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis


Friedman...

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

Heller, however, forbids subjecting the Second Amendment’s “core protection . . . to a freestanding ‘interestbalancing’ approach.” Heller, supra, at 634. This case illustrates why. If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing.
Enough with the novels. I never claim that passage meant a free for all. That’s you conflating the discussion and putting words in my mouth. Many in this very thread are making the case that any regulations are unconstitutional. Scalia's dissent disagrees with that. It’s a very simple point that I’m making. It sounds like you reluctantly agree. Correct?
 

Slade3200

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
40,903
Reaction score
6,851
Points
1,840
You all know where the U.S. government , and many Politicians are headed. They eventually want to confiscate all rifles and handguns from all citizens somewhere down the road. As part of the United Nations one world government takeover of the entire Earth.New World Order. This is what the Gun control people , and groups won't tell you.
This is a lie.

No it isn't. That's why the new anti-gun laws are going through Congress as we speak. Registration, registration will be public information, etc.
Another lie.

It's right here in HR 127:

First, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives must establish (1) a licensing system for the possession of firearms or ammunition, and (2) a registration system for firearms.

In addition, the Department of Justice (DOJ) must establish and maintain a publicly available database of all registered firearms.


Your Democrat handlers are lying to you.

Clayton is consistent. He'd be perfectly fine with requiring people to register and pay a fee for freedom of speech, protection from warrantless searches of his personal property or having to register to get protection for his religion. Right Clayton?

Wow, if everyone scrambled all Constitutional amendments like you do, this country would be a total mess.

The First Amendment is the First Amendment.

The Second Amendment is the Second Amendment.

They are two completely separate Amendments. This discussion is about the Second Amendment.

Despite your paranoid delusions!

Richard: Cmon kaz, stop talking about my double standards!

My point is about the second amendment. When we change amendment, the giant screeching sound is your standard changing.

When you want something, the Constitution is a sledge hammer. When you don't, the Constitution is toilet paper
Sorry Kaz, Richie is schooling your ass. It’s fun to watch

Wow, another leftist endorsing double standards. Who saw that coming? I mean EVERYBODY ...

LOL
Don’t lie, I didn’t endorse double standards I endorsed Richie schooling your ass

You endorsed Richard endorsing double standards, liar. It's what leftists do, you lie about everything all the time. You're fascists and you're tired of being held to any standard, particularly your own
Oh, interesting logic. Would you also say that people endorsing Trump also endorse finger banging random women without their permission or cheating on your pregnant wife with prostitute porn stars?


"Finger banging?" You mean like joe biden? No, that was actually rape....
Sure you can use that example too if you want. Either way it’s idiot logic. Or maybe I’ll start calling it Kaz logic
 

BrokeLoser

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2016
Messages
25,591
Reaction score
9,574
Points
910
Location
MEXIFORNIA
You all know where the U.S. government , and many Politicians are headed. They eventually want to confiscate all rifles and handguns from all citizens somewhere down the road. As part of the United Nations one world government takeover of the entire Earth.New World Order. This is what the Gun control people , and groups won't tell you.
This is a lie.

No it isn't. That's why the new anti-gun laws are going through Congress as we speak. Registration, registration will be public information, etc.
Another lie.

It's right here in HR 127:

First, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives must establish (1) a licensing system for the possession of firearms or ammunition, and (2) a registration system for firearms.

In addition, the Department of Justice (DOJ) must establish and maintain a publicly available database of all registered firearms.


Your Democrat handlers are lying to you.

Clayton is consistent. He'd be perfectly fine with requiring people to register and pay a fee for freedom of speech, protection from warrantless searches of his personal property or having to register to get protection for his religion. Right Clayton?

Wow, if everyone scrambled all Constitutional amendments like you do, this country would be a total mess.

The First Amendment is the First Amendment.

The Second Amendment is the Second Amendment.

They are two completely separate Amendments. This discussion is about the Second Amendment.

Despite your paranoid delusions!

Richard: Cmon kaz, stop talking about my double standards!

My point is about the second amendment. When we change amendment, the giant screeching sound is your standard changing.

When you want something, the Constitution is a sledge hammer. When you don't, the Constitution is toilet paper
Sorry Kaz, Richie is schooling your ass. It’s fun to watch

Wow, another leftist endorsing double standards. Who saw that coming? I mean EVERYBODY ...

LOL
Don’t lie, I didn’t endorse double standards I endorsed Richie schooling your ass

You endorsed Richard endorsing double standards, liar. It's what leftists do, you lie about everything all the time. You're fascists and you're tired of being held to any standard, particularly your own
Oh, interesting logic. Would you also say that people endorsing Trump also endorse finger banging random women without their permission or cheating on your pregnant wife with prostitute porn stars?
What’s “interesting” is you believe Trump endorses finger banging random women without their permission when such was never implied...and what makes you think he was “cheating“ on his pregnant wife...Melania may have given him the green light, maybe she’s into that open relationship shit.
WTF...I thought you Lefties are required to support and endorse all sexual deviancy by default...no?
 

Slade3200

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
40,903
Reaction score
6,851
Points
1,840
You all know where the U.S. government , and many Politicians are headed. They eventually want to confiscate all rifles and handguns from all citizens somewhere down the road. As part of the United Nations one world government takeover of the entire Earth.New World Order. This is what the Gun control people , and groups won't tell you.
This is a lie.

No it isn't. That's why the new anti-gun laws are going through Congress as we speak. Registration, registration will be public information, etc.
Another lie.

It's right here in HR 127:

First, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives must establish (1) a licensing system for the possession of firearms or ammunition, and (2) a registration system for firearms.

In addition, the Department of Justice (DOJ) must establish and maintain a publicly available database of all registered firearms.


Your Democrat handlers are lying to you.

Clayton is consistent. He'd be perfectly fine with requiring people to register and pay a fee for freedom of speech, protection from warrantless searches of his personal property or having to register to get protection for his religion. Right Clayton?

Wow, if everyone scrambled all Constitutional amendments like you do, this country would be a total mess.

The First Amendment is the First Amendment.

The Second Amendment is the Second Amendment.

They are two completely separate Amendments. This discussion is about the Second Amendment.

Despite your paranoid delusions!

Richard: Cmon kaz, stop talking about my double standards!

My point is about the second amendment. When we change amendment, the giant screeching sound is your standard changing.

When you want something, the Constitution is a sledge hammer. When you don't, the Constitution is toilet paper
Sorry Kaz, Richie is schooling your ass. It’s fun to watch

Wow, another leftist endorsing double standards. Who saw that coming? I mean EVERYBODY ...

LOL
Don’t lie, I didn’t endorse double standards I endorsed Richie schooling your ass

You endorsed Richard endorsing double standards, liar. It's what leftists do, you lie about everything all the time. You're fascists and you're tired of being held to any standard, particularly your own
Oh, interesting logic. Would you also say that people endorsing Trump also endorse finger banging random women without their permission or cheating on your pregnant wife with prostitute porn stars?
What’s “interesting” is you believe Trump endorses finger banging random women without their permission when such was never implied...and what makes you think he was “cheating“ on his pregnant wife...Melania may have given him the green light, maybe she’s into that open relationship shit.
WTF...I thought you Lefties are required to support and endorse all sexual deviancy by default...no?
As always the point went right over your head. It’s OK BL maybe you’ll get it next time!
 

Hutch Starskey

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2015
Messages
24,509
Reaction score
3,721
Points
290
The United States constitution clearly states that a "States militia must be well regulated and maintained." A weapon of a "States militia" is an assault rifle. Any ban would violate the United States constitution.
It’s called the National Guard. There are no legal militias.
Well regulated militias are a State's sovereign right secured by our Second Amendment.

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.
Well regulated militias are a State's sovereign right secured by our Second Amendment.

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
That militia is the NG. There are no legal, state sanctioned private militias.
 

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
65,113
Reaction score
13,795
Points
2,190
Location
Kazmania
They eventually want to confiscate all rifles and handguns from all citizens somewhere down the road.

And I want an Angel on a Gold Chain that I can ride to the Stars, but that ain't happening either!

The UN has no military to carry out such a dream.
The United States constitution clearly states that a "States militia must be well regulated and maintained." A weapon of a "States militia" is an assault rifle. Any ban would violate the United States constitution.

The National Guard has many assault rifles and many other cool weapons. They are the State Militias, who were always ultimately under the command of the CiC. Not the private gun clubs.

"A well regulated Militia," means trained in the art of war.

A "militia" is comprised of civilians whom are NOT under the command of government. We all learned that by third grade...you didn't?

That is known as a private militia, and all 50 states have laws making them illegal.
Untrue. The Constitution makes them legal in all 50 States. You are dreaming.

The constitution make sewing clubs for Grandma legal too. Gun Clubs are free to call themselves militia's but they have no legal authority to act as part of the US military chain of command.

Again, government educated failure, militias are an explanation for the second amendment, not a limitation on it.

You'd know that if you could read

I understand it's one of those Truthiness things for you, you just feel it's true, deep down in yer gut!

It must be a very confusing world for someone as stupid as you who never learned to read.

Don't you want better for your children than the shitty government education that you got where you can't read a single sentence?
 

FA_Q2

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
19,797
Reaction score
3,665
Points
290
Location
Washington State
They eventually want to confiscate all rifles and handguns from all citizens somewhere down the road.

And I want an Angel on a Gold Chain that I can ride to the Stars, but that ain't happening either!

The UN has no military to carry out such a dream.
The United States constitution clearly states that a "States militia must be well regulated and maintained." A weapon of a "States militia" is an assault rifle. Any ban would violate the United States constitution.

The National Guard has many assault rifles and many other cool weapons. They are the State Militias, who were always ultimately under the command of the CiC. Not the private gun clubs.

"A well regulated Militia," means trained in the art of war.

A "militia" is comprised of civilians whom are NOT under the command of government. We all learned that by third grade...you didn't?

That is known as a private militia, and all 50 states have laws making them illegal.
Untrue. The Constitution makes them legal in all 50 States. You are dreaming.

The constitution make sewing clubs for Grandma legal too. Gun Clubs are free to call themselves militia's but they have no legal authority to act as part of the US military chain of command.
...

Did someone make the claim that a or the militia has a legal authority to act as part of the US military chain of command. Anyone at all?
 

FA_Q2

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
19,797
Reaction score
3,665
Points
290
Location
Washington State
They eventually want to confiscate all rifles and handguns from all citizens somewhere down the road.

And I want an Angel on a Gold Chain that I can ride to the Stars, but that ain't happening either!

The UN has no military to carry out such a dream.
The United States constitution clearly states that a "States militia must be well regulated and maintained." A weapon of a "States militia" is an assault rifle. Any ban would violate the United States constitution.

The National Guard has many assault rifles and many other cool weapons. They are the State Militias, who were always ultimately under the command of the CiC. Not the private gun clubs.

"A well regulated Militia," means trained in the art of war.

A "militia" is comprised of civilians whom are NOT under the command of government. We all learned that by third grade...you didn't?

That is known as a private militia, and all 50 states have laws making them illegal.
Untrue. The Constitution makes them legal in all 50 States. You are dreaming.

The constitution make sewing clubs for Grandma legal too. Gun Clubs are free to call themselves militia's but they have no legal authority to act as part of the US military chain of command.
By definition militias are not part of the US military chain of command. They can become part of the US military chain of command but then they are regular government troops rather than militia.

The chain of command went through the Governors because we had no national standing army.

"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia,
The GOP Has a Problem: My Generation Isn't Conservative

, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

"... and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States,..."

What part of that do you not understand? Militias may become regular government troops. Including State government troops at which time they become subject to the authority of that government and are no longer actually militia.

It's meaningless without " reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; "
That is unconnected with 'the' militia referred to in the second and is outlined in Heller.
The States Governors were in charge of the Militias. They were not random groups of armed citizens who decide to play weekend soldier once in a while and call themselves "The Militia".
Well, yes and no. Does not matter what you may or may not call yourself. The militia is defined in Heller and throughout the writing of the founders. It is pretty damn clear to be honest.

States were in charge of training the militia and they did when the nation was in its early stages before a standing army was how we managed defense. The states do have the power to tell people to organize and train. I don't think that such an order would manage to go over very well today but it is in the constitution.
A lot has changed in warfare technology since then but the power structure over the militias, aka States National Guard, still starts with the Governors.
Correct. A lot has changed. IF the purpose of the second is no longer relevant then... wait for it...

CHANGE THE FUCKING AMENDMENT.

The amendment exists as it is. You may not like the realities of that but if you want to adjust the second to comport with modern times in a manner that it is not compatible with, namely removing the right of the people, then you need to actually change the constitution. Ignoring it is the wrong way to do this.
 

BlindBoo

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2010
Messages
37,725
Reaction score
6,396
Points
1,130
They eventually want to confiscate all rifles and handguns from all citizens somewhere down the road.

And I want an Angel on a Gold Chain that I can ride to the Stars, but that ain't happening either!

The UN has no military to carry out such a dream.
The United States constitution clearly states that a "States militia must be well regulated and maintained." A weapon of a "States militia" is an assault rifle. Any ban would violate the United States constitution.

The National Guard has many assault rifles and many other cool weapons. They are the State Militias, who were always ultimately under the command of the CiC. Not the private gun clubs.

"A well regulated Militia," means trained in the art of war.

A "militia" is comprised of civilians whom are NOT under the command of government. We all learned that by third grade...you didn't?

That is known as a private militia, and all 50 states have laws making them illegal.
Untrue. The Constitution makes them legal in all 50 States. You are dreaming.

The constitution make sewing clubs for Grandma legal too. Gun Clubs are free to call themselves militia's but they have no legal authority to act as part of the US military chain of command.
...

Did someone make the claim that a or the militia has a legal authority to act as part of the US military chain of command. Anyone at all?

Just the Constitution.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$350.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top