You're mentioning "The court" and you didn't provide any evidence to back up your claim. How am I supposed to know what court you're talking about and what case you're talking about?
There are courts that will say anything, there are courts that will say things that look like one thing, but actually aren't. But I don't know what you're talking about.
Actually I do have a factual basis for saying that "bear arms" means "militia duty"
It comes from the House in 1789
"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
This is the clause they're talking about. A part of the 2A that never made it to the final version.
Mr Gerry said: " Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."
"Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. For this reason, he wished the words to be altered so as to be confined to persons belonging to a religious sect scrupulous of bearing arms."
See here? He's said "exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples". The clause says "bear arms", not "militia duty" but they're using them synonymously.
"Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""
So Mr Jackson wanted to use "render military service" and not "bear arms". They changed between the two a lot in different versions of the 2A. Clearly they are synonymous.
So yeah, I actually have a factual AND legal basis for my statement.
Fine, you want fully automatic machine guns to be "in common use"? They just aren't. Some people use them. But really they're not "common".
And SAMs aren't common because THEY'RE BANNED. So they could ban something, say they're not common because they're banned and you'd be fine with that.
No, the National Guard is not a federal force. It can, like the unorganized militia, be called up into federal service. The National Guard does have dual status because they find that easier, but the governor could stop the National Guard doing what the feds want if the governor tried hard enough.
Well, you've managed to bring up the Heller case without actually saying it's the Heller case. You need to say what case you're talking about.
"f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank,
92 U. S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois,
116 U. S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. "
This, you quoted, is about the "individual rights interpretation." We're not arguing the individual v. collective rights interpretations, because the collective rights interpretation is a crock of shit.
The Miller case they said:
"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 the absence of any evidence.... we cannot say the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument"
Basically. We don't know. Because the evidence isn't here.
"Meaningless mumbo jumbo."
If you think it's "Meaningless mumbo jumbo." it's because you have no idea what I'm saying. Just because you're ignorant of these matters, doesn't mean I am.
giffords.org
www.law.cornell.edu
