The NRA.

[frigidweirdo]

And nothing about carrying arms in the whole text.

But the Supreme Court, right or wrong has handed down it's ruling. When SCOTUS ruled that black people were not citizens and therefore had no rights under the U.S. Constitution (Dred Scott v Sanford) it was a done deal no matter how fucked up until it was rectified by the passage of the 13th amendment because the Supreme Court is the law of the land.

What exactly are you trying to accomplish and are you a U.S. citzen?

What did the Supreme Court hand down, exactly?

But no, it's never a done deal because Justices change all the time. The right to privacy exists now when it didn't before, according to the Supreme Court.

 

[2aguy]

And nothing about carrying arms in the whole text.

But the Supreme Court, right or wrong has handed down it's ruling. When SCOTUS ruled that black people were not citizens and therefore had no rights under the U.S. Constitution (Dred Scott v Sanford) it was a done deal no matter how fucked up until it was rectified by the passage of the 13th amendment because the Supreme Court is the law of the land.

What exactly are you trying to accomplish and are you a U.S. citzen?

Frigid is bending himself/herself into a pretzel in trying to redefine the simple word "Bear" because he/she/it doesn't want law abiding people to be able to carry a gun for self defense in public....... If you take the time and read Heller, they go through the background and show that Frigid is using the Justice Stevens word yoga to deny you your ability to carry a gun...

From Heller......on Stevens and his "word yoga"...

In any event, the meaning of “bear arms” that petitioners and JUSTICE STEVENS propose is not even the (sometimes) idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a hybrid definition, whereby “bear arms” connotes the actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia.

No dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried that meaning at the time of the founding. But it is easy to see why petitioners and the dissent are driven to the hybrid definition.

Giving “bear Arms” its idiomatic meaning would cause the protected right to consist of the right to be a soldier or to wage war—an absurdity that no commentator has ever endorsed. See L. Levy, Origins of the Bill of Rights 135 (1999). Worse still, the phrase “keep and bear Arms” would be incoherent.

The word “Arms” would have two different meanings at once: “weapons” (as the object of “keep”) and (as the object of “bear”) one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying “He filled and kicked the bucket” to mean “He filled the bucket and died.” Grotesque Petitioners justify their limitation of “bear arms” to the military context by pointing out the unremarkable fact that it was often used in that context—the same mistake they made with respect to “keep arms.” It is especially unremarkable that the phrase was often used in a military context in the federal legal sources (such as records of congressional debate) that have been the focus of petitioners’ inquiry. Those sources would have had little occasion to use it except in discussions about the standing army and the militia. And the phrases used primarily in those military discussions include not only “bear arms” but also “carry arms,” “possess arms,” and “have arms”—though no one thinks that those other phrases also had special military meanings. See Barnett, Was the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Conditioned on Service in an Organized Militia?, 83 Tex. L. Rev. 237, 261 (2004). The common references to those “fit to bear arms” in congressional discussions about the militia are matched by use of the same phrase in the few nonmilitary federal contexts where the concept would be relevant. See, e.g., 30 Journals of Continental Congress 349–351 (J. Fitzpatrick ed. 1934). Other legal sources frequently used “bear arms” in nonmilitary contexts.10 Cunningham’s legal dictionary, cited above, gave as an example of its usage a sentence unrelated to military affairs (“Servants and labourers shall use bows and arrows on Sundays, &c. and not bear other arms”). And if one looks beyond legal sources, “bear arms” was frequently used in nonmilitary contexts. See Cramer & Olson, What Did “Bear Arms” Mean in the Second Amendment?, 6 Georgetown J. L. & Pub. Pol’y (forthcoming Sept. 2008), online at What Did "Bear Arms" Mean in the Second Amendment? by Clayton E. Cramer, Joseph Edward Olson :: SSRN (as visited June 24, 2008, and available in Clerk of Court’s case file) (identifying numerous nonmilitary uses of “bear arms” from the founding period). JUSTICE STEVENS points to a study by amici supposedly showing that the phrase “bear arms” was most frequently used in the military context. See post, at 12–13, n. 9; Linguists’ Brief 24. Of course, as we have said, the fact that the phrase was commonly used in a particular context does not show that it is limited to that context, and, in any event, we have given many sources where the phrase was used in nonmilitary contexts. Moreover, the study’s collection appears to include (who knows how many times) the idiomatic phrase “bear arms against,” which is irrelevant. The amici also dismiss examples such as “‘bear arms . . . for the purpose of killing game’” because those uses are “expressly qualified.” Linguists’ Brief 24. (JUSTICE STEVENS uses the same excuse for dismissing the state constitutional provisions analogous to the Second Amendment that identify private-use purposes for which the individual right can be asserted. See post, at 12.) That analysis is faulty. A purposive qualifying phrase that contradicts the word or phrase it modifies is unknown this side of the looking glass (except, apparently, in some courses on Linguistics). If “bear arms” means, as we think, simply the carrying of arms, a modifier can limit the purpose of the carriage (“for the purpose of selfdefense” or “to make war against the King”). But if “bear arms” means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, thcarrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply cannot add “for the purpose of killing game.” The right “to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game” is worthy of the mad hatter. Thus, these purposive qualifying phrases positively establish that “to bear arms” is not limited to military use.11

 

[2aguy]

Which is all very nice and good, if we lived in a perfect world where everyone did as they should. But we don't.

The Supreme Court majority is attempting to make "bear arms" become "carry arms".

Why do you think bear arms doesn't mean to carry arms? To me the plain language of the amendment seems rather clear.

Firstly, logic.

Logic suggests that if you have an amendment that begins with "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of the free state, the right of penguins to play chess shall not be infringed."

It makes no sense, right? Clearly, what the hell do penguins have to do with the militia.

Well, the same thing with "the right of the people to carry guns around with them" also doesn't do anything for the militia.

To protect the militia from the Federal government, they protected the right to keep arms so the militia would have a ready supply of arms. But guns don't kill people, people do.
So they also protected the right to be in the militia. So the militia would have ARMS and PERSONNEL to use those arms.

That's logical. To protect self defense or carrying of arms in an amendment about the militia makes no sense.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

Also this document.

It's from the House debates of the future Second Amendment. They discussed this clause that was eventually not a part of the 2A.

"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

Then they changed it to:

"but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

Do you see what they meant by "bear arms"? They meant "render military service in person"

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.

Are you telling me that guys not being able to carry guns around with them would destroy the constitution? Or would it be more that the militia without personnel could destroy the country because the ultimate check and balance on the federal government would be destroyed?

Mr Gerry also said: "What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty."

So, he's saying this because he wants to protect the militia, in an amendment that starts with "A well regulated militia", or he's talking about guys carrying guns around???

Mr Gerry said: "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."

So, Mr Gerry uses "bear arms" synonymously with "militia duty".

And nothing about carrying arms in the whole text.

Of course, Heller takes this on.... but you need to ignore that too...

JUSTICE STEVENS places great weight on James Madison’s inclusion of a conscientious-objector clause in his original draft of the Second Amendment: “but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.” Creating the Bill of Rights 12 (H. Veit, K. Bowling, & C. Bickford eds. 1991) (hereinafter Veit). He argues that this clause establishes that the drafters of the Second Amendment intended “bear Arms” to refer only to military service. See post, at 26. It is always perilous to derive the meaning of an adopted provision from another provision deleted in the drafting process.12 In any case, what JUSTICE STEVENS would conclude from the deleted provision does not follow. It was not meant to exempt from military service those who objected to going to war but had no scruples about personal gunfights.

Quakers opposed the use of arms not just for militia service, but for any violent purpose whatsoever—so much so that Quaker frontiersmen were forbidden to use arms to defend their families, even though “n such circumstances the temptation to seize a hunting rifle or knife in self-defense . . . must sometimes have been almost overwhelming.” P. Brock, Pacifism in the United States 359 (1968); see M. Hirst, The Quakers in Peace and War 336–339 (1923); 3 T. Clarkson, Portraiture of Quakerism 103–104 (3d ed. 1807). The Pennsylvania Militia Act of 1757 exempted from service those “scrupling the use of arms”—a phrase that no one contends had an idiomatic meaning. See 5 Stat. at Large of Pa. 613 (J. Mitchell & H. Flanders eds. 1898) (emphasis added).

Thus, the most natural interpretation of Madison’s deleted text is that those opposed to carrying weapons for potential violent confrontation would not be “compelled to render military service,” in which such carrying would be required.1

 

[Abatis]

Frigidweirdo goes looking for any sign of "militia rights" being spoke, looks bemused sits down.

What the **** dude?

Just reading what you write:

The right to bear arms is the right of an individual to be in the militia.

That, to me, is you claiming there is a claimable right to be in the militia and that right exists because of the 2nd Amendment. Am I missing some nuance in your words that makes my characterization of it being a "militia right", wrong?

As for there being no right to be in the militia. Who says? You?

Such a claim can not be sustained when one examines the militia law. The Militia Act of 1792 defines who shall be legally bound to perform militia duty. If serving in the militia was a "right" how could one be compelled to serve, with civil and criminal penalties for refusal?

Surely, under the US concept of rights, one is free, according to one's conscience, to decide whether to exercise said right or not. You are correct, a narrow exception for those "religiously scrupulous" to avoid serving was debated -- and discarded. Everyone, regardless of religious conviction was compelled to serve -- although states allowed the payment of an "exercise fine" for muster or even a "substitute fine" for someone to stand in your stead for actual service. If this "right" existed as you claim, the act of excepting out certain people or making people pay a fine to avoid service is legally incoherent.

Just to make note of militia law calling out particular citizens who are exempted from militia duty:

"II. And be it further enacted, That the Vice-President of the United States, the Officers, judicial and executives, of the government of the United States; the members of both houses of Congress, and their respective officers; all custom house officers, with the clerks; all post officers, and stage-drivers who are employed in the care and conveyance of the mail of the post office of the United States; all Ferrymen employed at any ferry on the post road; all inspectors of exports; all pilots, all mariners actually employed in the sea service of any citizen or merchant within the United States; and all persons who now are or may be hereafter exempted by the laws of the respective states, shall be and are hereby exempted from militia duty, notwithstanding their being above the age of eighteen and under the age of forty-five years."​

Your premise is ridiculous for another reason. This right is apparently a federally enforced right, set-out in the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution, mandating that regular citizens have some claim to membership in the STATE militia.

Why is this the only federal right enforced on states when it was understood that the Bill of Rights did not have any effect on state action? Surly this one unique circumstance of federal rights application would have been noted in Barron v Baltimore! if true, one would expect the legal reasoning for this application would have been the foundational theory for the 14th Amendment.

I'd also like to know why you think the right to keep arms was excluded from state enforcement and how only half of the 2nd applied to the states?

If your theory was true, the amount of legal examination by legislatures and the courts of the application of the 2nd Amendment and the conflicts emerging from said application would fill a dozen volumes in the federal register and then a dozen more after the Dick Act.

But no, your theory is completely absent from either 2nd Amendment case law or militia case law. Note that these are two separate and distinct branches of jurisprudence -- there is no mingling, there is no examination of the 2nd Amendment for any aspect of militia law -- which is inexplicable if your theory was true.

Again, your theory is absurd.

 

[McRocket]

Just upgraded to a Lifetime Membership ......and it's worth every penny!!

What the heck does your membership in the NRA have to do with politics on a chat forum?

What's next? Are you going to tell us when you have your next bowel movement?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Frigidweirdo goes looking for any sign of "militia rights" being spoke, looks bemused sits down.

What the **** dude?

Just reading what you write:

The right to bear arms is the right of an individual to be in the militia.

That, to me, is you claiming there is a claimable right to be in the militia and that right exists because of the 2nd Amendment. Am I missing some nuance in your words that makes my characterization of it being a "militia right", wrong?

As for there being no right to be in the militia. Who says? You?

Such a claim can not be sustained when one examines the militia law. The Militia Act of 1792 defines who shall be legally bound to perform militia duty. If serving in the militia was a "right" how could one be compelled to serve, with civil and criminal penalties for refusal?

Surely, under the US concept of rights, one is free, according to one's conscience, to decide whether to exercise said right or not. You are correct, a narrow exception for those "religiously scrupulous" to avoid serving was debated -- and discarded. Everyone, regardless of religious conviction was compelled to serve -- although states allowed the payment of an "exercise fine" for muster or even a "substitute fine" for someone to stand in your stead for actual service. If this "right" existed as you claim, the act of excepting out certain people or making people pay a fine to avoid service is legally incoherent.

Just to make note of militia law calling out particular citizens who are exempted from militia duty:

"II. And be it further enacted, That the Vice-President of the United States, the Officers, judicial and executives, of the government of the United States; the members of both houses of Congress, and their respective officers; all custom house officers, with the clerks; all post officers, and stage-drivers who are employed in the care and conveyance of the mail of the post office of the United States; all Ferrymen employed at any ferry on the post road; all inspectors of exports; all pilots, all mariners actually employed in the sea service of any citizen or merchant within the United States; and all persons who now are or may be hereafter exempted by the laws of the respective states, shall be and are hereby exempted from militia duty, notwithstanding their being above the age of eighteen and under the age of forty-five years."​

Your premise is ridiculous for another reason. This right is apparently a federally enforced right, set-out in the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution, mandating that regular citizens have some claim to membership in the STATE militia.

Why is this the only federal right enforced on states when it was understood that the Bill of Rights did not have any effect on state action? Surly this one unique circumstance of federal rights application would have been noted in Barron v Baltimore! if true, one would expect the legal reasoning for this application would have been the foundational theory for the 14th Amendment.

I'd also like to know why you think the right to keep arms was excluded from state enforcement and how only half of the 2nd applied to the states?

If your theory was true, the amount of legal examination by legislatures and the courts of the application of the 2nd Amendment and the conflicts emerging from said application would fill a dozen volumes in the federal register and then a dozen more after the Dick Act.

But no, your theory is completely absent from either 2nd Amendment case law or militia case law. Note that these are two separate and distinct branches of jurisprudence -- there is no mingling, there is no examination of the 2nd Amendment for any aspect of militia law -- which is inexplicable if your theory was true.

Again, your theory is absurd.

Okay, so the problem here isn't what I write, it's what you want to interpret.

The "militia rights" theory is that a militia has rights, rather than individuals. I'm assuming this is what you're talking about.

Look, an individual has a right to own weapons. We know why this was inserted into the Bill of Rights specifically, it was so the militia would have a ready supply of weapons.

Do you agree with this?

What other purpose would there have been to protect firearms?

Yes, they were important tools at the time. But many important tools existed at the time, and none of them were given constitutional protection. Where's the protection of knives? An society without knives wouldn't have been able to cut the meat. What about fire? No constitutional protection of fire. So why guns?

Also, why guns in an amendment that starts with "A well regulated militia"?

What were the problems with the militia back then?

We have Mr Gerry's opinion.

"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."

Firstly, that the feds could declare individuals religiously scrupulous and prevent them from bearing arms, or rendering militia service or militia duty. You choose, they're all in this document and all used synonymously.

They feared this. They feared the feds would stop individuals being in the militia, and this would be the first (or last) step to tyranny.

Do you agree that this is what Mr Gerry meant?

"What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary."

Ah, Mr Gerry worries that a standing army is the "bane of liberty". He does not want a standing army. He wants a militia instead, because he sees that the militia will be made up of ordinary folk who won't go against their own interests.

"Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."

Seems pretty logical that this is what he's saying here too.

Antifederalist Paper 29

Anti-federalist paper 29

"Was it a standing army that gained the battles of Lexington and Bunker Hill, and took the ill-fated Burgoyne? Is not a well-regulated militia sufficient for every purpose of internal defense? "

They believed a militia was all that was needed.

"An ambitious man who may have the army at his devotion, may step up into the throne, and seize upon absolute power."

More fear of a standing army.

"First, the personal liberty of every man, probably from sixteen to sixty years of age, may be destroyed by the power Congress have in organizing and governing of the militia."

Ah. This points to Article 1 Section 8.

"The Congress shall have power....

• To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

• 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;"

Wait, everything the anti-federalists feared came into being.

So, how do you PROTECT THE MILITIA?

Back to the anti-federalist papers

"As militia they may be subjected to fines to any amount, levied in a military manner; they may be subjected to corporal punishments of the most disgraceful and humiliating kind; and to death itself, by the sentence of a court martial. To this our young men will be more immediately subjected, as a select militia, composed of them, will best answer the purposes of government."

So, you're in the militia. You get called up to militia duty. Then you get fined, or you get subjected to corporal punishment or you get subjected to death from court martial.

You've just annulled the militia.

More fears of the anti-federalists.

"Thirdly, the absolute command of Congress over the militia may be destructive of public liberty;"

Total control over the militia is bad, they fear. Probably rightly too.

So, how do you fight this? The Bill or Rights were an anti-federalist invention.

The Federalist Papers saw no problem with a standing army.

Keep and Bear Arms - Gun Owners Home Page - 2nd Amendment Supporters

"Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. "

The Federalist Papers claim there's nothing to be worried about.

Why were the Bill of Rights implemented?

United States Bill of Rights - Wikipedia

"Proposed following the often bitter 1787–88 battle over ratification of the U.S. Constitution, and crafted to address the objections raised by Anti-Federalists, "

This is what Wikipedia has to say about it.

The Bill of Rights were all about the objections raised by the anti-federalists.

There's plenty of information saying they feared a standing army, plenty that they feared the US federal govt would weaken or destroy a militia.

And there's ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about carrying arms around.

Now, if you think the militia is in danger. You can protect the militia by protecting the arms owned in the hands of civilians and their ability to be in the militia.

Bearing arms was a duty more than a right. But in a Bill of Rights you can protect a duty, you have to protect a right, which is why they made it a right.

However much you want to believe the theory of rights that right are "natural" or "god given" or whatever, the reality is they were made by man. And they always will be.

The right to bear arms was clearly made by man, because before we were humans, we didn't really have arms in the first place.

So, everything I've got points towards the anti-federalists pushing for protections for the militia.

In doing so they made the Second Amendment and started it with "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state", because the 2A was about protecting the militia as the anti-federalist paper 29 fear would happen without this protection.

I've got Mr Gerry saying that "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms." would allow the feds to prevent people from "militia duty" or rendering "military service".

But there's nothing from this time, nothing from the anti-federalists talking about protecting a right to carry arms. Nothing. Not even a hint. No logical reason for protecting this in an amendment that starts with "A well regulated militia" either.

 

[frigidweirdo]

As for there being no right to be in the militia. Who says? You?

Such a claim can not be sustained when one examines the militia law. The Militia Act of 1792 defines who shall be legally bound to perform militia duty. If serving in the militia was a "right" how could one be compelled to serve, with civil and criminal penalties for refusal?

Surely, under the US concept of rights, one is free, according to one's conscience, to decide whether to exercise said right or not. You are correct, a narrow exception for those "religiously scrupulous" to avoid serving was debated -- and discarded. Everyone, regardless of religious conviction was compelled to serve -- although states allowed the payment of an "exercise fine" for muster or even a "substitute fine" for someone to stand in your stead for actual service. If this "right" existed as you claim, the act of excepting out certain people or making people pay a fine to avoid service is legally incoherent.

Just to make note of militia law calling out particular citizens who are exempted from militia duty:

"II. And be it further enacted, That the Vice-President of the United States, the Officers, judicial and executives, of the government of the United States; the members of both houses of Congress, and their respective officers; all custom house officers, with the clerks; all post officers, and stage-drivers who are employed in the care and conveyance of the mail of the post office of the United States; all Ferrymen employed at any ferry on the post road; all inspectors of exports; all pilots, all mariners actually employed in the sea service of any citizen or merchant within the United States; and all persons who now are or may be hereafter exempted by the laws of the respective states, shall be and are hereby exempted from militia duty, notwithstanding their being above the age of eighteen and under the age of forty-five years."​

Your premise is ridiculous for another reason. This right is apparently a federally enforced right, set-out in the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution, mandating that regular citizens have some claim to membership in the STATE militia.

Why is this the only federal right enforced on states when it was understood that the Bill of Rights did not have any effect on state action? Surly this one unique circumstance of federal rights application would have been noted in Barron v Baltimore! if true, one would expect the legal reasoning for this application would have been the foundational theory for the 14th Amendment.

I'd also like to know why you think the right to keep arms was excluded from state enforcement and how only half of the 2nd applied to the states?

If your theory was true, the amount of legal examination by legislatures and the courts of the application of the 2nd Amendment and the conflicts emerging from said application would fill a dozen volumes in the federal register and then a dozen more after the Dick Act.

But no, your theory is completely absent from either 2nd Amendment case law or militia case law. Note that these are two separate and distinct branches of jurisprudence -- there is no mingling, there is no examination of the 2nd Amendment for any aspect of militia law -- which is inexplicable if your theory was true.

Again, your theory is absurd.

Yes, you make a good point about how if serving in the militia was a right, how could people be forced to be in the militia.

The issue is they're two separate things.

You have a right to be in the militia. Doesn't mean you have to be in the militia.

The right is that if you choose to be in the militia, the government can't stop you.

That's completely different to the government forcing you to be in the militia.

Say the government forces you into the militia. Then decides to kick you out. You can't prevent being forced, but you can prevent being kicked out because you have that right to be there.

"Surely, under the US concept of rights, one is free, according to one's conscience, to decide whether to exercise said right or not. "

Yes, I agree with this.

However. Take military conscription. The US govt can FORCE YOU to join up. By forcing you to join up it forces you to say things. If the Sergeant Major comes up to you and shouts in your face, you can choose to say "sir, yes sir" or you can say "**** off". If you say "**** off" you'll be locked up.

If you refuse conscription you'll be jailed. Which takes away other rights.

As I said in the previous post, the right to bear arms was seen as a DUTY that was conferred into a right because it was seen as the only way to protect the militia.

But as a right, it's there. However being forced into military service is something that takes away your rights. However it doesn't take away or infringe your right to bear arms, you still have the protections.

You just don't have the protection of not being forced into military duty.

Which is something different.

"Your premise is ridiculous for another reason. This right is apparently a federally enforced right, set-out in the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution, mandating that regular citizens have some claim to membership in the STATE militia."

Well, first you have to understand what the militia was.

It was state militias. "The militia" was all the state militias in all the states combined. There was no Federal militia. There still isn't. The feds merely have the power to call these state militias up into federal service.

"Why is this the only federal right enforced on states when it was understood that the Bill of Rights did not have any effect on state action?"

No, it wasn't enforced onto the states. The whole premise of the 2A was that the FEDERAL GOVT wanted a STANDING ARMY. The states couldn't have standing armies. The only people they feared who would try to undermine the militia would be the feds.

Why would a state try and undermine it's only military power? It was seen as absurd that any governor or state legislature would do such a thing.

The states could prevent individuals from being in the militia. The feds can't.

I would also suppose that now the states can't prevent individuals from being in the militia, but with the Dick Act this isn't an issue, because they're already in the militia. How convenient (as I stated before, this was intentional for this exact purpose).

"I'd also like to know why you think the right to keep arms was excluded from state enforcement and how only half of the 2nd applied to the states?"

Again, the right to keep arms was not subject to the states, nor the right to bear arms.

"But no, your theory is completely absent from either 2nd Amendment case law or militia case law."

No, not my theory. What you think my theory is. Keep going and you'll get to understand what I mean.

 

[Abatis]

Well Mr Gerry has something rather different to say about that.

The militia is the ultimate check and balance. Freedom of speech and press are there to stop the shit hitting the fan, but when the shit has hit the fan, the only thing left is the militia.

The militia needs TWO THINGS, arms and personnel to use those arms.

How do you protect the militia? Mr Gerry thought it was pretty damn important to protect the militia. In fact, when talking about the SECOND AMENDMENT he went off on one talking about the militia. Which is pretty ******* funny because you think he was talk about walking around with guns so you could shoot up some bottles that might just be attacking your ass.

Gerry was concerned that the federal recognition of a right to decline serving (on religious grounds) could give the federal government a mechanism to harm both the right to arms of the people and the militia of the state. The entire thrust of the demand for a bill of rights was to restrain the federal government. They feared that calling out such a right would allow the feds to dictate to the states who was religiously scrupulous to the point of extinguishing their militia.

This Anti-Federalist mindset was also seen in the Federalist Papers and their fundamental opposition to adding a bill of rights. Their fear was no matter how the provisions were worded, people determined to harm rights would invent powers -- even under the pretense of protecting the right (paragraph breaks added):

"I . . . affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?

I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority, which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it, was intended to be vested in the national government.

This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights."

Federalist 84​

If there was any thought that the 4th article of amendment included a federally enforced, malleable, undefined but allowed to be defined later by Congress "right to membership in the militia", it would have never been ratified by the states. The fears expressed by both Federalists and Anti-Federalists like Gerry, make this clear.

Congress could not decide who was in the militia at all.

Of course they did and that power is supreme, preemptive and unquestionable.

In 1853 during the Massachusetts constitutional convention, delegates proposed amending the state constitution to allow for the enrollment of Blacks in the state militia. Fears of a federal nullification suit, holding that the state could not constitutionally enroll in the militia any citizen who would be excluded from such service under federal militia law, forced the defeat of the proposal.

After Dred Scott in 1856, (which used the exclusion of Blacks from the militia in the Court's reasoning that Blacks could not be considered citizens) the Massachusetts legislature led by abolitionists tried again to enroll Blacks in their militia. These bills were vetoed upon advisory opinions from the state AG and the state supreme court on federal preemption grounds.

As an aside, as reprehensible as the Dred Scott holding was, the Court unremarkably noted that if Blacks were accepted as US citizens, they would enjoy, "the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went".

.

​

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well Mr Gerry has something rather different to say about that.

The militia is the ultimate check and balance. Freedom of speech and press are there to stop the shit hitting the fan, but when the shit has hit the fan, the only thing left is the militia.

The militia needs TWO THINGS, arms and personnel to use those arms.

How do you protect the militia? Mr Gerry thought it was pretty damn important to protect the militia. In fact, when talking about the SECOND AMENDMENT he went off on one talking about the militia. Which is pretty ******* funny because you think he was talk about walking around with guns so you could shoot up some bottles that might just be attacking your ass.

Gerry was concerned that the federal recognition of a right to decline serving (on religious grounds) could give the federal government a mechanism to harm both the right to arms of the people and the militia of the state. The entire thrust of the demand for a bill of rights was to restrain the federal government. They feared that calling out such a right would allow the feds to dictate to the states who was religiously scrupulous to the point of extinguishing their militia.

This Anti-Federalist mindset was also seen in the Federalist Papers and their fundamental opposition to adding a bill of rights. Their fear was no matter how the provisions were worded, people determined to harm rights would invent powers -- even under the pretense of protecting the right (paragraph breaks added):

"I . . . affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?

I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority, which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it, was intended to be vested in the national government.

This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights."

Federalist 84​

If there was any thought that the 4th article of amendment included a federally enforced, malleable, undefined but allowed to be defined later by Congress "right to membership in the militia", it would have never been ratified by the states. The fears expressed by both Federalists and Anti-Federalists like Gerry, make this clear.

Congress could not decide who was in the militia at all.

Of course they did and that power is supreme, preemptive and unquestionable.

In 1853 during the Massachusetts constitutional convention, delegates proposed amending the state constitution to allow for the enrollment of Blacks in the state militia. Fears of a federal nullification suit, holding that the state could not constitutionally enroll in the militia any citizen who would be excluded from such service under federal militia law, forced the defeat of the proposal.

After Dred Scott in 1856, (which used the exclusion of Blacks from the militia in the Court's reasoning that Blacks could not be considered citizens) the Massachusetts legislature led by abolitionists tried again to enroll Blacks in their militia. These bills were vetoed upon advisory opinions from the state AG and the state supreme court on federal preemption grounds.

As an aside, as reprehensible as the Dred Scott holding was, the Court unremarkably noted that if Blacks were accepted as US citizens, they would enjoy, "the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went".

.

"Gerry was concerned that the federal recognition of a right to decline serving (on religious grounds) could give the federal government a mechanism to harm both the right to arms of the people and the militia of the state. The entire thrust of the demand for a bill of rights was to restrain the federal government. They feared that calling out such a right would allow the feds to dictate to the states who was religiously scrupulous to the point of extinguishing their militia. "

Well.... sort of.

Mr Gerry was worried that if the feds could decide who was religiously scrupulous, then they could prevent them from exercising their right to be in the militia.

Therefore there would be no point in making the future Second Amendment in the first place.

"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."

That's exactly what he's saying there.

"This Anti-Federalist mindset was also seen in the Federalist Papers and their fundamental opposition to adding a bill of rights. Their fear was no matter how the provisions were worded, people determined to harm rights would invent powers -- even under the pretense of protecting the right (paragraph breaks added):"

Yes, however the Bill of Rights was included because of concessions to the anti-federalists, not the federalists. So I'm not sure why you've brought this up.

"If there was any thought that the 4th article of amendment included a federally enforced, malleable, undefined but allowed to be defined later by Congress "right to membership in the militia", it would have never been ratified by the states. The fears expressed by both Federalists and Anti-Federalists like Gerry, make this clear."

Essentially saying that "bear arms" is "militia duty" or "render military service".

"Of course they did and that power is supreme, preemptive and unquestionable."

Well, the could in the sense that they could make the militia act and define who was in it. What I had meant to say was that the feds couldn't decide who WASN'T in the militia.

The Militia Act stated that all white men aged 18-45 were in the militia. This wouldn't have stopped women from being in the militia, or black men, or Native Americans, had the government considered them to have rights in the first place. What prevented this from happening was more issues within society, rather than limits from the Militia Act.

And in Dred Scott the Supreme Court was considered to have misused its powers. Hardly a great example.

 

[Abatis]

The Dick Act made two different Militias. Why?

Congress was repealing the Militia Act of 1792 and incrementally extinguishing the Art I, § 8, cl's 15 & 16 militia by absorbing them into §12 army. The state militia's throat was cut in 1903, it was speared by the National Defense Act of 1916 and the final death stroke was the National Defense Act Amendments of 1933 which created dual enlistment; NG recruits taking an oath to the federal government.

As far as the unorganized militia goes, Congress wasn't creating the unorganized militia in the Dick Act, it was just recognizing that it still existed as a matter of federal law. The Congress did create a state authority to organize "State Defensive Forces" because the Dick Act nullified most state Art I, § 8, cl.16 powers.

Presser tells you what? Nothing much.

Presser tells us that in 1886 "it is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states . . . " which refutes your idea that this entity, the unorganized "reserve" militia was created by Congress in 1903.

The National Guard is, to all extent, the Militia as stated in the Constitution.

LOL. No . . . At best it is a "select militia", at worst it is the hated, distrusted "standing army".

Yeah, so ******* ridiculous, except that they MADE THE DAMN UNORGANIZED MILITIA and have done absolutely NOTHING with it for more than 110 years. Right.....

What's to do? Congress removed all militia obligations from the general citizenry.

So, come on there, let's hear your view as to why the Unorganized militia was made.

SMH . . .

The point of the 2A is to find out what the Feds can and cannot do

No, we discover what the feds are allowed to do by examining the body of the Constitution to see if any power has been granted to allow government to have any involvement or control in a particular interest. Finding no specific grant of power we next look to our state's constitution to see if any power was granted to the state over that interest. If both constitutions are silent on that interest we can safely assume that the interest is a retained right.

Now, you're saying there's a right to walk around with your gun and the Feds can't stop you.

See, that's where you are off wandering in the darkness. Yes, federally I certainly do have the right to walk around armed. Not because the 2nd Amendment gives it to me but because no power was ever granted to the feds to allow it to dictate to the citizen how arms may be borne (or not at all) The only federal laws barring carriage of arms in public are particular and specific time and place restrictions (e.g., "sensitive places" like federal courthouses etc.).

OTOH, federally, a militia member needs no "right" either keep or bear arms; his arms possession and carriage of arms as a militiaman (going to and from muster) is entirely under the authority and mandate of law . . . That is his immunity from any laws banning possession or carriage of arms, not any provision in any bill of rights.

Only that the law in this day and age allows people to stop you walking around with your gun.

Yes, state laws. This is where your appeal to the ratification debates fails. The 14th Amendment changed everything. The federal 2nd Amendment is now enforceable on the states and whatever the right to keep and bear arms is (See Heller and McDonald and your federal circuit's decisions), it is now the supreme law of the land.

Again, militia members don't need any right to keep OR BEAR arms. Everything about their arms possession and use is under orders and applicable law -- rights have no place or effect. Again, there are no "militia rights" for anyone, states or citizens, to be claimed under the 2nd Amendment.

Doesn't add up, does it?

It adds up perfectly when you release the RKBA from your ridiculous compartmentalization.

​

 

[Taz]

Just upgraded to a Lifetime Membership ......and it's worth every penny!!

What do you get out of it? The right to pay them money. Anything else?

It gives them power to tell politicians not to infringe on the Right to keep and bear arms.

So their only purpose is to scare you with nonsense to get your money? Good ******* plan!

No... they fight to keep the 2nd Amendment safe, they teach gun safety to millions of people each year, they teach law enforcement how to use their guns......

So no purpose really. Got it.

 

[Taz]

What do you get out of it? The right to pay them money. Anything else?

Someone who will fight for my second amendment rights.

So they scare you with bs to get your money, where do I sign up?

So you're saying you have no reason to fear the NRA?

I don't fear the NRA. I don't like them buying off pols, but not afraid of them, per se.

And yet they aren't the biggest group paying politicians by a long shot... that would go to the left wing unions.... trade unions, teachers unions and lawyers..... and they all support gun control, taking away the Right to self defense from American citizens.

Gun control doesn't remove all the guns, that's another NRA scare tactics. That YOU fell for that is not a surprise.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Just upgraded to a Lifetime Membership ......and it's worth every penny!!

What the heck does your membership in the NRA have to do with politics on a chat forum?

What's next? Are you going to tell us when you have your next bowel movement?

So you're into that are you....sick bastard.

 

[Taz]

What do you get out of it? The right to pay them money. Anything else?

Someone who will fight for my second amendment rights.

So they scare you with bs to get your money, where do I sign up?

So you're saying you have no reason to fear the NRA?

I don't fear the NRA. I don't like them buying off pols, but not afraid of them, per se.

Than why are you constantly bitching about em?

I don't like what they do by blocking EVERY gun reform (some are needed, but no I'm not a total gun ban guy). But afraid of them? No, that would be you and 2aguy.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Someone who will fight for my second amendment rights.

So they scare you with bs to get your money, where do I sign up?

So you're saying you have no reason to fear the NRA?

I don't fear the NRA. I don't like them buying off pols, but not afraid of them, per se.

Than why are you constantly bitching about em?

I don't like what they do by blocking EVERY gun reform (some are needed, but no I'm not a total gun ban guy). But afraid of them? No, that would be you and 2aguy.

WTF? Why would I be afraid of the NRA?

 

[Taz]

So they scare you with bs to get your money, where do I sign up?

So you're saying you have no reason to fear the NRA?

I don't fear the NRA. I don't like them buying off pols, but not afraid of them, per se.

Than why are you constantly bitching about em?

I don't like what they do by blocking EVERY gun reform (some are needed, but no I'm not a total gun ban guy). But afraid of them? No, that would be you and 2aguy.

WTF? Why would I be afraid of the NRA?

You're afraid that without the NRA the 2nd Amendment will disappear or something.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The Dick Act made two different Militias. Why?

Congress was repealing the Militia Act of 1792 and incrementally extinguishing the Art I, § 8, cl's 15 & 16 militia by absorbing them into §12 army. The state militia's throat was cut in 1903, it was speared by the National Defense Act of 1916 and the final death stroke was the National Defense Act Amendments of 1933 which created dual enlistment; NG recruits taking an oath to the federal government.

As far as the unorganized militia goes, Congress wasn't creating the unorganized militia in the Dick Act, it was just recognizing that it still existed as a matter of federal law. The Congress did create a state authority to organize "State Defensive Forces" because the Dick Act nullified most state Art I, § 8, cl.16 powers.

Presser tells you what? Nothing much.

Presser tells us that in 1886 "it is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states . . . " which refutes your idea that this entity, the unorganized "reserve" militia was created by Congress in 1903.

The National Guard is, to all extent, the Militia as stated in the Constitution.

LOL. No . . . At best it is a "select militia", at worst it is the hated, distrusted "standing army".

Yeah, so ******* ridiculous, except that they MADE THE DAMN UNORGANIZED MILITIA and have done absolutely NOTHING with it for more than 110 years. Right.....

What's to do? Congress removed all militia obligations from the general citizenry.

So, come on there, let's hear your view as to why the Unorganized militia was made.

SMH . . .

The point of the 2A is to find out what the Feds can and cannot do

No, we discover what the feds are allowed to do by examining the body of the Constitution to see if any power has been granted to allow government to have any involvement or control in a particular interest. Finding no specific grant of power we next look to our state's constitution to see if any power was granted to the state over that interest. If both constitutions are silent on that interest we can safely assume that the interest is a retained right.

Now, you're saying there's a right to walk around with your gun and the Feds can't stop you.

See, that's where you are off wandering in the darkness. Yes, federally I certainly do have the right to walk around armed. Not because the 2nd Amendment gives it to me but because no power was ever granted to the feds to allow it to dictate to the citizen how arms may be borne (or not at all) The only federal laws barring carriage of arms in public are particular and specific time and place restrictions (e.g., "sensitive places" like federal courthouses etc.).

OTOH, federally, a militia member needs no "right" either keep or bear arms; his arms possession and carriage of arms as a militiaman (going to and from muster) is entirely under the authority and mandate of law . . . That is his immunity from any laws banning possession or carriage of arms, not any provision in any bill of rights.

Only that the law in this day and age allows people to stop you walking around with your gun.

Yes, state laws. This is where your appeal to the ratification debates fails. The 14th Amendment changed everything. The federal 2nd Amendment is now enforceable on the states and whatever the right to keep and bear arms is (See Heller and McDonald and your federal circuit's decisions), it is now the supreme law of the land.

Again, militia members don't need any right to keep OR BEAR arms. Everything about their arms possession and use is under orders and applicable law -- rights have no place or effect. Again, there are no "militia rights" for anyone, states or citizens, to be claimed under the 2nd Amendment.

Doesn't add up, does it?

It adds up perfectly when you release the RKBA from your ridiculous compartmentalization.

​

The reality was they got rid of the state militias as a military force because they were inept. They weren't doing the job the Federalists thought they were there for. So they made the National Guard to do that job, as a highly trained militia.

Why would Congress recognize that the militia still existed, when it still existed as the National Guard?

"Presser tells us that in 1886 "it is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states . . . " which refutes your idea that this entity, the unorganized "reserve" militia was created by Congress in 1903."

What? The unorganized militia was created in 1903. Why?

Because the unorganized militia was in contrast to the organized militia which is the National Guard. In 1886 there was no National Guard, so there couldn't have been an "unorganized militia".

Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia

"This law repealed the Militia Acts of 1792 and designated the militia [per Title 10, Section 311] as two groups: the Unorganized Militia, which included all able-bodied men between ages 17 and 45, and the Organized Militia, which included state militia (National Guard) units receiving federal support."

Well, the National Guard isn't the standing army. Yes, it's something that didn't exist and wasn't envisioned in 1791, however the National Guard members are not professional soldiers.

It is, however, a select militia. You're right.

Now, here's the question again. If you want a select militia, why do you need to have an unorganized militia? Why not just have the select militia. It's the militia as stated in the US Constitution. There's nothing unconstitutional as far as the original 1789 Constitution is concerned with saying "we have this militia and only people we decide are allowed in it".

So, why have the unorganized militia that has done NOTHING in 115 years?

And yes, you've just said it. "What's to do?" So why did they make something when they'd taken away every single obligation away from them?

Why?

"No, we discover what the feds are allowed to do by examining the body of the Constitution to see if any power has been granted to allow government to have any involvement or control in a particular interest. "

Okay then. Let's look at the US Constitution to see what the US govt can do.

"The Congress shall have power....To provide for calling forth the Militia "

Right, so they can call forth the militia. Now, if an individual is in the militia and he owns a weapon, and uses that weapon in the militia, and then gets called up into federal service. Can the US Federal govt take that gun away from him?

Yes, they can.

Can they discipline him and have him kicked out of the militia?

Yes, they can.

"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, "

Can they arm the militia?

Yes, they can.

Can they disarm the militia?

Yes, they can.

Can they decide who is in the militia?

Yes they can.

Can they decide who is NOT in the militia?

Yes, they can.

The power is there clear enough for a dictator like leader to do as he wants.

So why hasn't this happened?

"See, that's where you are off wandering in the darkness. Yes, federally I certainly do have the right to walk around armed. Not because the 2nd Amendment gives it to me but because no power was ever granted to the feds to allow it to dictate to the citizen how arms may be borne"

Ah, well this is an entirely different argument isn't it?

I've been saying there's a right to self defense, it just doesn't come from the Second Amendment. The right to keep arms allows for selling and buy of arms, which involve the need to move that gun around.

But none of these are the right to bear arms in the Second Amendment.

Which is what we're discussing.

"OTOH, federally, a militia member needs no "right" either keep or bear arms; his arms possession and carriage of arms as a militiaman (going to and from muster) is entirely under the authority and mandate of law . . . That is his immunity from any laws banning possession or carriage of arms, not any provision in any bill of rights."

Well, the problem we've seen is that the US Federal govt could strip people of their militia membership. Mr Gerry feared this, the anti-federalists feared this too.

"Yes, state laws. This is where your appeal to the ratification debates fails. "

Well not really. If we go back to the beginning. This is about the NRA.

Had the right to bear arms been the right to carry arms around even just at a federal level, can you imagine the NRA not trying to push for this to be incorporated?

But they didn't. Instead they kept pushing for carry and conceal permits.

Also, let's take Alaska. A gun state if ever there was one.

In 1986 you couldn't carry and conceal in Alaska. But they got rid of this and don't demand you have a permit, but you can get one for reciprocity.

However you can't carry a gun into a school. Imagine not being able to have freedom of speech or religion in a school, people would be going mental, the NRA would be going mental if there were a right to carry arms.

Texas is another large gun state.

Why, after the McDonald case, did they not do away with permits for carrying? Why did the NRA not push away from permits?

The NRA’s dream bill could soon become law after quietly moving through Congress

Why push for a law that requires all states to recognize permits which, if you were right, wouldn't need to exist?

"ridiculous compartmentalization" huh?

Like that historical documents point towards a right to be in the militia? That's compartmentalization?

Like that you don't really have historical documents that point to anyone giving a damn in any way in the SLIGHTEST at protecting a right to carry arms around with them?

Like that there's logic to having protections for the militia and all historical evidence points to the Bill of Rights being an anti-federalist document?

Like there's no evidence of anti-federalists wanting to protect the right to carry arms around with them?

That sort of "compartmentalization" which is supposedly ridiculous because.... you don't agree with it.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Someone who will fight for my second amendment rights.

So they scare you with bs to get your money, where do I sign up?

So you're saying you have no reason to fear the NRA?

I don't fear the NRA. I don't like them buying off pols, but not afraid of them, per se.

And yet they aren't the biggest group paying politicians by a long shot... that would go to the left wing unions.... trade unions, teachers unions and lawyers..... and they all support gun control, taking away the Right to self defense from American citizens.

Gun control doesn't remove all the guns, that's another NRA scare tactics. That YOU fell for that is not a surprise.

Yes, preventing prisoners from having guns is gun control.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

So you're saying you have no reason to fear the NRA?

I don't fear the NRA. I don't like them buying off pols, but not afraid of them, per se.

Than why are you constantly bitching about em?

I don't like what they do by blocking EVERY gun reform (some are needed, but no I'm not a total gun ban guy). But afraid of them? No, that would be you and 2aguy.

WTF? Why would I be afraid of the NRA?

You're afraid that without the NRA the 2nd Amendment will disappear or something.

Thats not what you said.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

So they scare you with bs to get your money, where do I sign up?

So you're saying you have no reason to fear the NRA?

I don't fear the NRA. I don't like them buying off pols, but not afraid of them, per se.

And yet they aren't the biggest group paying politicians by a long shot... that would go to the left wing unions.... trade unions, teachers unions and lawyers..... and they all support gun control, taking away the Right to self defense from American citizens.

Gun control doesn't remove all the guns, that's another NRA scare tactics. That YOU fell for that is not a surprise.

Yes, preventing prisoners from having guns is gun control.

WTF are you talking about?