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

[Open Bolt]

So which states are private, non governmental approved militias legal in?

According to freedom of association and freedom of speech, in all states.

Note that the militia movement would never have formed if not for progressives making the untrue claim that people only have the right to have guns if they are in a militia.

Wow. You've built your own little world, complete with rules and all. Have you mentioned all this to your therapist? I'm sure it's something he would need to know.

Not at all. What he is doing is pointing out the logical consequences of someone's untrue claim, if that untrue claim had actually been true.

 

[Open Bolt]

State's militia, is their well regulated National Guard....

The National Guard is part of a standing army. That means it isn't militia.


------------------------------------------------------------

States also have their own State militia that is not subject to federal callup.

Unfortunately the State Guards are not well regulated.

Our Second Amendment is about States' sovereign rights not individual liberty.

That is incorrect. The Second Amendment prevents infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. That is an individual civil liberty.


------------------------------------------------------------

The NRA is and always was a mediocre to poor defender of the second amendment

Different groups have different strengths. The NRA does an excellent job of preventing gun control laws from being passed.

If I were fighting the passage of a gun control law, the NRA would be the first people I would call.

If I were challenging a gun control law in court, I'd turn to a different group.


------------------------------------------------------------

Banning is not needed when the U.S. Government can take the same route they took with Machine Guns and requirements to own one, and my bet is the USSC will uphold the law...
Am I for it?
No, but seeing there are requirements to own certain firearms like Machine Guns mean that it could also be applied to AR-15’s and weapons like it...

Don't bet money. You'd lose that bet.

Laws against machineguns can be justified as serving a compelling government interest.

Laws against long guns with pistol grips cannot be so justified.

 

[Open Bolt]

I missed where it actually said the militias had to be armed with assault weapons.

The militia's job includes repelling foreign invasions. Obviously repelling a foreign invasion requires modern infantry weapons.

Seems to me they HAD to have meant muzzle-loading flintlocks.

You are mistaken. They meant weapons that are appropriate for repelling a foreign invasion.

Look at the weapons that they are using in Ukraine right now. No one in Ukraine is using muzzle loading flintlocks.

 

[Open Bolt]

Ok so how do you see that working with the state militias?

If the militia is well armed and well trained, then it will be an effective fighting force.

I’m asking you for your explanation. Why can’t you just give a straight answer? I’m not versed in 18th century terminology so please dazzle us with your knowledge

"Well regulated" means that the militia in question is an effective fighting force due to it being well armed and well trained.

Ok well why the shit didn’t you say that 5 posts ago?! It’s like pulling teeth to have a conversation with you! So now that we have an answer. Wel regulated means “properly working and calibrated” can you explain in real terms what a properly working militia is? Who decided if it’s properly working?

Had I been posting back then I would have answered you much sooner instead of beating around the bush.

In real terms, a well regulated militia is one that has both the arms and the training to enable it to fight effectively and repel a foreign invasion.

So what exactly is that militia? The state police and highway patrol?

These days, the State Guards are the militia.

Unfortunately, the State Guards are not well regulated.

 

[Open Bolt]

The actual context is (from Miller)
"in common use by the military".
In Miller it was held that a short barreled shotgun was not protected because it was not a "common use" military weapon.
But wait you say...machine guns SHOULD be protected precisely because they are military weapons (as are assault rifles). McConnell also held that these 'protected' common use military type weapons could be regulated in whatever manner considered reasonable (because they are so dangerous in the hands of someone intent on using them for criminal acts ie. criminals). This includes taxing them heavily and outright banning of civilian ownership of machine guns made after 1986.

Who is this McConnell person? Why should anyone care what his opinion is? I am not aware of any "McConnell" who is a legal authority on this matter.

You'll note that every consideration of "protection" is within the concept of militia usefullness...because that's the context of the 2A.

No. That is only one context of the Second Amendment.

And yes, of course militiamen have the right to have military weapons. This McConnell person that you refer to is wrong about that.

But it is not the only context of the Second Amendment. People also have the right to have guns for the private defense of their home.

Scalia seeing a losing argument on many fronts proceeded with a big dose of judicial activism and excised "by the military" from the "common use" clause and THEN decoupled "Well Regulated Militia" from the 2A claiming it meant actually nothing but was just a bit of throat clearing.

Mr. Scalia did not see any losing argument, and he engaged in no judicial activism.

The right to keep and bear arms has always included people having guns for the private defense of their homes.

McReynolds assumed the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms in order to ensure an effective militia exists. “With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.”195 In other words, the Militia Clause empowers Congress to regulate the militia,196 and the Second Amendment ensures it is armed.

Militiamen do indeed have the right to have modern infantry weapons.

 

[Open Bolt]

Heller. A perfect example of the rampant cognitive dissonance of the right. They will talk and talk about how terrible judicial activism is, and then at the same time celebrate the greatest incident of judicial activism in American History, Heller.

That is incorrect. Heller upheld the clear meaning of the Constitution. That is not in any way judicial activism.

An example of judicial activism would be when progressive judges disregard the clear meaning of the Constitution.

conservative jurists were quick to criticize Heller as lacking two supposed hallmarks of judicial conservatism: an unbiased review of the evidence about the meaning of the Second Amendment and, given ambiguity about that meaning, judicial restraint. Justice Scalia’s opinion, these judicial conservatives argued, deployed an unbalanced historical analysis, reached a questionable conclusion about a constitutional right,

Bogus criticism, considering that nothing that they said about the Heller ruling is even remotely true.

There is no ambiguity about the clear fact that the right to keep and bear arms includes people having guns for the private defense of their homes.

And given the limited scope of the ruling, it was if anything too restrained. The Supreme Court is about to massively expand on Heller because it was way too limited.

and failed to defer to the judgments of elected officials.

Rightly so, considering that those elected officials were deliberately violating people's civil liberties.

Funny, the second amendment actually says something about a militia, it doesn't say damn thing about self-defense. You reckon the founders just forgot to put it in?

Protecting the entire right to keep and bear arms from infringement automatically protects all parts of the right to keep and bear arms, including the part where people have the right to have guns for the private defense of their home.

Heller defines judicial activism because, for the first time in American history, the court ruled that the second amendment pertained to an individual right to self defense.

That is incorrect. Upholding the clear meaning of the Constitution (even if for the first time) is not judicial activism.

Judicial activism is when progressive judges disregard the clear meaning of the Constitution.

Scalia, like he often did, twisted and distorted both the words of the founders and jurist prudence, to come up with a preconceived outcome that centered more on politics than legal standing.

That is incorrect. Mr. Scalia upheld our rights as they were meant to be upheld.

And tell me, for two hundred years there was no personal right to self-defense read into the second amendment.

That is incorrect. The right to keep and bear arms has always included people having guns for the private defense of their home.

Countless decisions by courts at all levels, and suddenly, everything changed with Heller.

Gotta start enforcing the Second Amendment some time. The sooner the better.

Like I said, Militia is in the second amendment, self-defense is not. Why?

Because the first part of the Second Amendment deals with the militia.

And because the second part of the Second Amendment protects the entire right to keep and bear arms. That includes people having guns for the private defense of their home, but it is not limited to that. There is also the right to have guns for collective defense. The Second Amendment is not about any one part of the right to keep and bear arms, but rather is about protecting the entire thing.

Hell no, how is that logical. The key word, "particular". Barring a "particular" arm does not in any way bar the use of arms. Hell, until 2007 Absinthe was banned in the United States. Did that mean that drinking was banned?

So in other words, if the law forbade anyone from ever criticizing the current President (either Republican or Democrat), so long as the law still allowed people to talk freely about their favorite sports teams that means there is no violation of free speech???

Of course not. Why do progressives hate civil liberties so much?

Banning any particular arm, if there is no actual justification for banning that particular arm, is unconstitutional. Period.

 

[Open Bolt]

The 2A says that individuals have the right to be in THE militia.

That is incorrect. It says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Keeping arms is clearly about possessing them and not about service in any organization.

Well, the well regulated bit doesn't mean anything. It's merely saying that a well regulated militia is the best for the security of the free state. There's nothing there that imposes on the government. The government doesn't have to have a well regulated militia. All it has to do is allow individuals to be in the militia, whether it's well regulated or not, but the founders would hope it's well regulated.

That is incorrect. Saying that a well regulated militia is "necessary" is a mandate to have a well regulated militia.

Yes, the justices in Heller were definitely playing up to a base and not saying what they knew the Amendment meant.

That is incorrect. The justices in Heller were well aware of the fact that the Second Amendment protects people's right to possess guns.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

This is the area that interests me. The 2nd Amendment seems pretty clear: 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.

Okay. So, a couple of points:

First, it doesn't say "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, AND the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It's saying the people can join an actual militia to protect their security.

Second, it's pretty clear when it says "well regulated". That means that the governing authority can regulate militias as it sees fit, just as it can regulate an army as it sees fit. So those who join the militia must submit to regulations.

Nowhere does it infer that individuals can be running around like Yosemite Sam.

You are stupid. You are no better than the worst leftists.

You have never read Heller, have you?

 

[schmidlap]

The Freedom Haters do not speak for the people. They only think that they do.

Gun ownership does not result in the slaughter of any innocent people. Those people would be just as dead if they were killed with some other weapon.



Widespread gun ownership is not the cause of mass murders. Murder victims would be just as dead if they were killed with different weapons.



Not if those measures violate anyone's civil liberties.

Maybe your daily bowl of Kellogg's All Bran® satisfies the Founding Fathers' requirement that you must be "well-regulated."

 

[M14 Shooter]

"So what did they limit?

Apparently -not- the guns you specified.
Care to try again?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

But then again you know the case and know it limited the Government from banning handguns but it certainly hasn't been used to overturn any of the laws banning military grade weapons.

Correct.

And should the Court in the future invalidate state AWBs – which will likely be the case given the Court’s makeup – the ruling won’t be an endorsement of insurrectionist dogma and it will certainly reaffirm the fact that the Second Amendment right is not ‘unlimited.’

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Just nitpicking, but Mr. Miller was never found guilty.

The trial court struck down the NFA and released Mr. Miller, but the police kept his gun anyway, leaving him defenseless. Mr. Miller had had his sawed-off shotgun for protection because someone was trying to kill him.

Alas, without his gun to protect him, he was soon found shot to death, which makes Mr. Miller the very first victim of gun control in the US.

When the case got to the Supreme Court it should have been up to Mr. Miller's defense to argue that his shotgun was covered by the Second Amendment. But by that time Mr. Miller was already dead and there was no longer any defense to present that side of the case.

Wrong.

Miller concerned the NFA’s prohibition of weapons determined to be dangerous and unusual, whose sole purpose was to facilitate criminal activity – such as a sawed-off shotgun with a barrel length of less than 18”.

A sawed-off shotgun can be easily concealed by a criminal to commit robbery or murder – because such a weapon has no relationship to legitimate militia service, its possession is not within the scope of the Second Amendment.

Conservatives try to use the ‘trench gun’ lie to undermine the authority of Miller – falsely claiming that sawed-off shotguns were used by the military and therefore are ‘legitimate’ militia weapons, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

Conservatives are either unaware that the M37 had a 20” barrel and was not a ‘sawed-off’ or ‘short barreled’ shotgun, or they are too dishonest to acknowledge this fact.

An Official Journal Of The NRA | Combat Shotguns Of The Vietnam War

Shotguns with familiar names—Ithaca, Remington, Winchester, Savage and Stevens—served American troops with distinction in the steaming jungles of Vietnam.

www.americanrifleman.org

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The point I always make to these anti gun nuts is that Miller affirmed that the Second applies to military type firearms. They don't want to hear that.

The ‘point’ you make is a lie.

No one denies that Miller concerns the possession of military weapons.

Miller reaffirms the fact that the Second Amendment is not ‘unlimited,’ that it is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose – such as a sawed-off shotgun, and that the possession of such weapons which have no legitimate militia purpose is not entitled to Second Amendment protections.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Maybe your daily bowl of Kellogg's All Bran® satisfies the Founding Fathers' requirement that you must be "well-regulated."

In working order, As to be expected

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Wrong.

Miller concerned the NFA’s prohibition of weapons determined to be dangerous and unusual, whose sole purpose was to facilitate criminal activity – such as a sawed-off shotgun with a barrel length of less than 18”.

A sawed-off shotgun can be easily concealed by a criminal to commit robbery or murder – because such a weapon has no relationship to legitimate militia service, its possession is not within the scope of the Second Amendment.

Conservatives try to use the ‘trench gun’ lie to undermine the authority of Miller – falsely claiming that sawed-off shotguns were used by the military and therefore are ‘legitimate’ militia weapons, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

Conservatives are either unaware that the M37 had a 20” barrel and was not a ‘sawed-off’ or ‘short barreled’ shotgun, or they are too dishonest to acknowledge this fact.

An Official Journal Of The NRA | Combat Shotguns Of The Vietnam War

Shotguns with familiar names—Ithaca, Remington, Winchester, Savage and Stevens—served American troops with distinction in the steaming jungles of Vietnam.

www.americanrifleman.org

AR 15's are legitimate militia weapons and are in the common use of the time
Semi automatic pistols are another legitimate militia weapons
And if Jack Miller would have had representation at the supreme court ruling short barrel shotguns would have been shown they have been used by the military and the NFA would have been ruled unconstitutional.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Miller reaffirms the fact that the Second Amendment is not ‘unlimited,’ that it is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose – such as a sawed-off shotgun, and that the possession of such weapons which have no legitimate militia purpose is not entitled to Second Amendment protections.

As you know, your post is a lie, as Miller said no such thing.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If a souldier would carry it in battle...I ******* GET IT TOO!!!

Wrong – ignorant, idiotic, ridiculous, and childish.

In the coming decades Second Amendment jurisprudence will continue to evolve, resulting in a more comprehensive understanding of what regulations and restrictions are Constitutional and what are not.

But there will always be limits and restrictions based on what weapons are dangerous and unusual and what weapons are in common use – not based on what is possessed by the military or a childish conservative stomping his little feet having a temper tantrum.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And I will do ANYTHING to restore the right to its fullest extent WITHOUT RESTRICTION.

lol

Good luck with that.

Tilt at your childish windmills all you want – the Second Amendment will never be ‘without restriction.’

And there’s nothing to ‘restore,’ the right exists as it always has, as determined by the Supreme Court: neither ‘unlimited’ nor ‘absolute.’

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Wrong – ignorant, idiotic, ridiculous, and childish.

In the coming decades Second Amendment jurisprudence will continue to evolve, resulting in a more comprehensive understanding of what regulations and restrictions are Constitutional and what are not.

But there will always be limits and restrictions based on what weapons are dangerous and unusual and what weapons are in common use – not based on what is possessed by the military or a childish conservative stomping his little feet having a temper tantrum.

well regulated has already been defined
In working order as to be expected
Here's another in common use of the time
and the right od the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed

 

[Flash]

The ‘point’ you make is a lie.

No one denies that Miller concerns the possession of military weapons.

Miller reaffirms the fact that the Second Amendment is not ‘unlimited,’ that it is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose – such as a sawed-off shotgun, and that the possession of such weapons which have no legitimate militia purpose is not entitled to Second Amendment protections.

No, you are confused Moon Bat.

Miller states:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.


In other words since the Court (erroneously) determined that since the short barreled shotgun was not "military equipment" it was not protected by the Second Amendment.

UNITED STATES v. MILLER et al.

www.law.cornell.edu

You stupid uneducated low information Moon Bats don't know any more about the Constitution than you know about Economics, History, Biology, Climate Science or Ethics.

Now just shut the **** up.