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

[StormAl]

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.

SCOTUS says no.

actually U.S. v Miller says otherwise

Miller actually ties the 2A to the militia... and upholds the regulation of machine guns

... which is governed by ... the state, not the individual.

The governor of Michigan is considering calling in and regulating the unorganized militia.

 

[Rigby5]

Intentionally ignoring the right of the people makes you a disingenuous hack. Believing that gun control laws will affect anyone other than law abiding citizens makes you a moron.

Simply having nothing but fallacy instead of any valid arguments is no better than the immorality of bearing false witness, Right-Wingers. Why should anyone take the right-wing seriously about their alleged moral sincerity in abortion threads?

Our legislators should be doing their job.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

The most important threat to be able to handle in any state or country is always a corrupt police and military.
They always tend towards corruption because the wealthy elite always get into positions of political power because they can afford the bribes, threats, and media campaigns that requires.
So there is no legal way any honest democratic republic government can make the police and military have superior arms to the general population.

In a democratic republic, the people are supposed to be and remain supreme.

Your right wing, left wing approach is all wrong.
It is traditionally always the right wing that supports a draconian police and military, and federal gun control.
It is traditionally always the left wing that wants an armed population to offset a police and military corrupted by the wealthy elite.

Our State legislators should be doing their job.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

The infrequent or rare need to call up and create an Organized Militia in no way implies there is not even greater need and right for an unorganized militia for state, municipal, and individual needs.

Not at all. We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States. Don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and regulate them well.

Since "regulate" means protect, facilitate, and keep regular, then I agree completely.

 

[Rigby5]

This is a State's sovereign right:

No. We don't go for "States' rights" after the Union won the Civil War.

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)

The Chicago Outfit cannot revoke gun rights granted by the U.S. Constitution. The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment both guarantee that:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This is the law, right wingers:

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 means must be sacrificed to the end, not the end to the means.

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

A WELL REGULATED MILIA BEING NECESSARY...

Except a "well regulated militia" means that you have to allow the public to keep arms so that they have regular exposure to their use and handling.
When you regulate interstate commerce, bowel movements, blood flow, electrical current, etc., you do not restrict.
You do the opposite, which is to prevent restriction.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

SCOTUS says no.

actually U.S. v Miller says otherwise

Miller actually ties the 2A to the militia... and upholds the regulation of machine guns

Wrong.
{...

1. The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.
2. The "double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, bearing identification number 76230," was never used in any militia organization.

...}

United States v. Miller - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

.

Miller does tie to the 2A militia, but does not require the Organized Militia, so Miller was still appropriately covered.
The ruling said it was the short barrel shotgun that was not covered and protected.
But a machine gun would be covered and protected under this ruling, because a machine gun clearly does have sufficient precedent as a military weapon.

 

[Rigby5]

Intentionally ignoring the right of the people makes you a disingenuous hack. Believing that gun control laws will affect anyone other than law abiding citizens makes you a moron.

Simply having nothing but fallacy instead of any valid arguments is no better than the immorality of bearing false witness, Right-Wingers. Why should anyone take the right-wing seriously about their alleged moral sincerity in abortion threads?

Our legislators should be doing their job.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

The most important threat to be able to handle in any state or country is always a corrupt police and military.
They always tend towards corruption because the wealthy elite always get into positions of political power because they can afford the bribes, threats, and media campaigns that requires.
So there is no legal way any honest democratic republic government can make the police and military have superior arms to the general population.

In a democratic republic, the people are supposed to be and remain supreme.

Your right wing, left wing approach is all wrong.
It is traditionally always the right wing that supports a draconian police and military, and federal gun control.
It is traditionally always the left wing that wants an armed population to offset a police and military corrupted by the wealthy elite.

Our State legislators should be doing their job.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

The infrequent or rare need to call up and create an Organized Militia in no way implies there is not even greater need and right for an unorganized militia for state, municipal, and individual needs.

But still in reality, the organized militia today is the mostly states national guard and the unorganized militia is all citizens between 18 and 45 who are eligible for the draft.

The National Guard could be the Organized Militia if you want. I do not care.
The POINT is the 2nd amendment protects the gun rights of the unorganized militia, which as you say is at least all adult males.
It really implies even more than that, since women and children played a role in home defense realistically.

 

[Rigby5]

If shall not be infringed means something else to you than you're wrong

Nonsense.

“Shall not be infringed” means what the courts say it means.

Background checks, magazine capacity restrictions, and permits to carry concealed firearms are examples of measures that don’t infringe on the Second Amendment.

Handgun bans, jurisdictions refusing to issue concealed carry permits, and requiring a vision test for a firearm permit do infringe on the Second Amendment.

This isn’t difficult to understand, simply read the court decisions and the case law.

Wrong.
The courts do not get to make law.
When the courts are wrong, as they were before 1776, the Declaration of Independence says we have the inherent individual rights to abolish the current courts and start over.
The courts are NOT the top of the law, we are, with our inherent individual rights.
That is why we can create the courts.
And since we create them, they can not be superior to us.

While no right is absolute, jurisdiction is absolute in the case of firearms.
The 2nd amendment is saying that since firearms are so important for a free state, then there was a total ban on any and all federal jurisdiction over weapons.
The 2nd amendment does not have to be a right at all.
All it has to be is a prohibition on federal jurisdiction.
The Founders clearly were wary of any federal government, since they were just forced to mount an armed rebellion.

Which is amplified by the 9th and 10th amendments, which say the feds only get the jurisdiction they are expressly granted in the constitution. Do you see any article granting federal jurisdiction over firearms?
Nope, nothing at all gives the federal government ANY firearms jurisdiction.
So even if we ignore the 2nd amendment entirely, there can still be no federal weapons legislation, legally.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

SCOTUS says no.

actually U.S. v Miller says otherwise

Miller actually ties the 2A to the militia... and upholds the regulation of machine guns

... which is governed by ... the state, not the individual.

The governor of Michigan is considering calling in and regulating the unorganized militia.

The unorganized militia is NOT owned or in anyway governed by the state.
It is mainly for personal home defense, in a time and place where there were no police and lots of threats.
When the state calls up from the unorganized militia, for a posse as an example, that is then the Organized Militia.
When ever any government calls up people for mandatory duty, that is organized militia.
The unorganized militia when when individuals protect their home by themselves.

And since the meaning of "regulating" in Founders terminology means to facilitate, then the governor of Michigan would be helping the unorganized militia by making them more regular. I am sure they would not mind being given a few machine guns.

 

[Lesh]

Intentionally ignoring the right of the people makes you a disingenuous hack. Believing that gun control laws will affect anyone other than law abiding citizens makes you a moron.

Simply having nothing but fallacy instead of any valid arguments is no better than the immorality of bearing false witness, Right-Wingers. Why should anyone take the right-wing seriously about their alleged moral sincerity in abortion threads?

Our legislators should be doing their job.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

The most important threat to be able to handle in any state or country is always a corrupt police and military.
They always tend towards corruption because the wealthy elite always get into positions of political power because they can afford the bribes, threats, and media campaigns that requires.
So there is no legal way any honest democratic republic government can make the police and military have superior arms to the general population.

In a democratic republic, the people are supposed to be and remain supreme.

Your right wing, left wing approach is all wrong.
It is traditionally always the right wing that supports a draconian police and military, and federal gun control.
It is traditionally always the left wing that wants an armed population to offset a police and military corrupted by the wealthy elite.

Our State legislators should be doing their job.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

The infrequent or rare need to call up and create an Organized Militia in no way implies there is not even greater need and right for an unorganized militia for state, municipal, and individual needs.

But still in reality, the organized militia today is the mostly states national guard and the unorganized militia is all citizens between 18 and 45 who are eligible for the draft.

I believe it’s actually males between that age and leaves out any Federal workers.

That is why Scalia “decoupled” the militia clause. It left out too many for his liking

 

[Lesh]

If shall not be infringed means something else to you than you're wrong

Nonsense.

“Shall not be infringed” means what the courts say it means.

Background checks, magazine capacity restrictions, and permits to carry concealed firearms are examples of measures that don’t infringe on the Second Amendment.

Handgun bans, jurisdictions refusing to issue concealed carry permits, and requiring a vision test for a firearm permit do infringe on the Second Amendment.

This isn’t difficult to understand, simply read the court decisions and the case law.

Wrong.
The courts do not get to make law.
When the courts are wrong, as they were before 1776, the Declaration of Independence says we have the inherent individual rights to abolish the current courts and start over.
The courts are NOT the top of the law, we are, with our inherent individual rights.
That is why we can create the courts.
And since we create them, they can not be superior to us.

While no right is absolute, jurisdiction is absolute in the case of firearms.
The 2nd amendment is saying that since firearms are so important for a free state, then there was a total ban on any and all federal jurisdiction over weapons.
The 2nd amendment does not have to be a right at all.
All it has to be is a prohibition on federal jurisdiction.
The Founders clearly were wary of any federal government, since they were just forced to mount an armed rebellion.

Which is amplified by the 9th and 10th amendments, which say the feds only get the jurisdiction they are expressly granted in the constitution. Do you see any article granting federal jurisdiction over firearms?
Nope, nothing at all gives the federal government ANY firearms jurisdiction.
So even if we ignore the 2nd amendment entirely, there can still be no federal weapons legislation, legally.

Just stop talking. Wishful gibberish is not an argument

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

SCOTUS says no.

actually U.S. v Miller says otherwise

Miller actually ties the 2A to the militia... and upholds the regulation of machine guns

actually Miller was ruling on sawed-off shotguns not machine guns
Miller did rule that the only weapons protected by the second amendment were military weapons

 

[bigrebnc1775]

If shall not be infringed means something else to you than you're wrong

Nonsense.

“Shall not be infringed” means what the courts say it means.

Background checks, magazine capacity restrictions, and permits to carry concealed firearms are examples of measures that don’t infringe on the Second Amendment.

Handgun bans, jurisdictions refusing to issue concealed carry permits, and requiring a vision test for a firearm permit do infringe on the Second Amendment.

This isn’t difficult to understand, simply read the court decisions and the case law.

the courts cannot overrule the BILL OF RIGHTS which has been in existence since the birth of this country.
Strike 2

 

[StormAl]

If shall not be infringed means something else to you than you're wrong

Nonsense.

“Shall not be infringed” means what the courts say it means.

Background checks, magazine capacity restrictions, and permits to carry concealed firearms are examples of measures that don’t infringe on the Second Amendment.

Handgun bans, jurisdictions refusing to issue concealed carry permits, and requiring a vision test for a firearm permit do infringe on the Second Amendment.

This isn’t difficult to understand, simply read the court decisions and the case law.

the courts cannot overrule the BILL OF RIGHTS which has been in existence since the birth of this country.
Strike 2

The courts interpret the Constitution, and what they say certainly tops what you or I think.

 

[danielpalos]

Not at all. We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States. Don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and regulate them well.

Since "regulate" means protect, facilitate, and keep regular, then I agree completely.

Unfortunately for you and those of your point of view; the law already covers and preempts your special pleading.

Besides, this is what it refers to: control or supervise (something, especially a company or business activity) by means of rules and regulations.

 

[danielpalos]

Except a "well regulated militia" means that you have to allow the public to keep arms so that they have regular exposure to their use and handling.

How did you reach your conclusion? Our Second Amendment is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a free State not Individual Liberty or natural rights.

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;

 

[danielpalos]

If shall not be infringed means something else to you than you're wrong

Nonsense.

“Shall not be infringed” means what the courts say it means.

Background checks, magazine capacity restrictions, and permits to carry concealed firearms are examples of measures that don’t infringe on the Second Amendment.

Handgun bans, jurisdictions refusing to issue concealed carry permits, and requiring a vision test for a firearm permit do infringe on the Second Amendment.

This isn’t difficult to understand, simply read the court decisions and the case law.

Wrong.
The courts do not get to make law.
When the courts are wrong, as they were before 1776, the Declaration of Independence says we have the inherent individual rights to abolish the current courts and start over.
The courts are NOT the top of the law, we are, with our inherent individual rights.
That is why we can create the courts.
And since we create them, they can not be superior to us.

While no right is absolute, jurisdiction is absolute in the case of firearms.
The 2nd amendment is saying that since firearms are so important for a free state, then there was a total ban on any and all federal jurisdiction over weapons.
The 2nd amendment does not have to be a right at all.
All it has to be is a prohibition on federal jurisdiction.
The Founders clearly were wary of any federal government, since they were just forced to mount an armed rebellion.

Which is amplified by the 9th and 10th amendments, which say the feds only get the jurisdiction they are expressly granted in the constitution. Do you see any article granting federal jurisdiction over firearms?
Nope, nothing at all gives the federal government ANY firearms jurisdiction.
So even if we ignore the 2nd amendment entirely, there can still be no federal weapons legislation, legally.

Courts apply the law. And, the right to petition for redress of grievances is in our First Amendment not our Second Amendment.

 

[danielpalos]

The unorganized militia is NOT owned or in anyway governed by the state.
It is mainly for personal home defense, in a time and place where there were no police and lots of threats.
When the state calls up from the unorganized militia, for a posse as an example, that is then the Organized Militia.
When ever any government calls up people for mandatory duty, that is organized militia.
The unorganized militia when when individuals protect their home by themselves.

And since the meaning of "regulating" in Founders terminology means to facilitate, then the governor of Michigan would be helping the unorganized militia by making them more regular. I am sure they would not mind being given a few machine guns.

Where do you get your right wing propaganda and rhetoric?

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

 

[miketx]

If shall not be infringed means something else to you than you're wrong

Nonsense.

“Shall not be infringed” means what the courts say it means.

Background checks, magazine capacity restrictions, and permits to carry concealed firearms are examples of measures that don’t infringe on the Second Amendment.

Handgun bans, jurisdictions refusing to issue concealed carry permits, and requiring a vision test for a firearm permit do infringe on the Second Amendment.

This isn’t difficult to understand, simply read the court decisions and the case law.

the courts cannot overrule the BILL OF RIGHTS which has been in existence since the birth of this country.
Strike 2

They can do anything they want as we have seen.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

If shall not be infringed means something else to you than you're wrong

Nonsense.

“Shall not be infringed” means what the courts say it means.

Background checks, magazine capacity restrictions, and permits to carry concealed firearms are examples of measures that don’t infringe on the Second Amendment.

Handgun bans, jurisdictions refusing to issue concealed carry permits, and requiring a vision test for a firearm permit do infringe on the Second Amendment.

This isn’t difficult to understand, simply read the court decisions and the case law.

the courts cannot overrule the BILL OF RIGHTS which has been in existence since the birth of this country.
Strike 2

The courts interpret the Constitution, and what they say certainly tops what you or I think.

the courts can't make laws and rewrite the bill of rights with their interpretation

 

[bigrebnc1775]

If shall not be infringed means something else to you than you're wrong

Nonsense.

“Shall not be infringed” means what the courts say it means.

Background checks, magazine capacity restrictions, and permits to carry concealed firearms are examples of measures that don’t infringe on the Second Amendment.

Handgun bans, jurisdictions refusing to issue concealed carry permits, and requiring a vision test for a firearm permit do infringe on the Second Amendment.

This isn’t difficult to understand, simply read the court decisions and the case law.

the courts cannot overrule the BILL OF RIGHTS which has been in existence since the birth of this country.
Strike 2

They can do anything they want as we have seen.

and they will get ignored

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The unorganized militia is NOT owned or in anyway governed by the state.
It is mainly for personal home defense, in a time and place where there were no police and lots of threats.
When the state calls up from the unorganized militia, for a posse as an example, that is then the Organized Militia.
When ever any government calls up people for mandatory duty, that is organized militia.
The unorganized militia when when individuals protect their home by themselves.

And since the meaning of "regulating" in Founders terminology means to facilitate, then the governor of Michigan would be helping the unorganized militia by making them more regular. I am sure they would not mind being given a few machine guns.

Where do you get your right wing propaganda and rhetoric?

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

So who removes a tyrant when they control the military?