- Mar 7, 2014
- 45,863
- 9,609
- 2,030
To answer the other points.
Which states didn't have a militia by 1789?
In the American Revolutionary War you had militias from:
That's 14 colonies, by 1789 there were still only 13 states in the Union, Vermont not being in the country at that point.
- 1 Connecticut
- 2 Delaware
- 3 Georgia
- 4 Maryland
- 5 Massachusetts
- 6 New Hampshire
- 7 New Jersey
- 8 New York
- 9 North Carolina
- 10 Pennsylvania
- 11 Rhode Island
- 12 South Carolina
- 13 Vermont
- 14 Virginia
List of United States militia units in the American Revolutionary War - Wikipedia
No, we can't agree that the right is for "law abiding people" only. The theory of rights says that rights can be INFRINGED UPON when someone is found guilty, through due process, of committing a crime or being found insane. Criminals retain their rights in prison, they're just infringed upon.
You can encourage whatever you like with regards to training to use guns. However it doesn't change the fact that the "right to bear arms" is the right to be in the militia.
Dear frigidweirdo
I applaud you in citing historical backing for the interpretation you support that
(a) right to bear arms applies to militia members (b) right of the people is not limited to just citizens
(though I would still argue with you that the intent must be law abiding, or else it threatens the right of people to security in their
homes and equal protection of the laws if the law supported arms used for breaking laws; I argue by the very spirit of the laws,
the meaning has to be for defending rights and laws and not for violating them, or it contradicts the very reason for having laws)
Here are some citations that show AT LEAST both interpretations on both points are equally arguable.
By the same "religious freedom" and protection of your creed from discrimination,
then neither can govt be abused to EXCLUDE the interpretation of others either;
the same principles that defend YOUR interpretation and beliefs also protect other interpretations.
So again, it would Contradict the laws themselves if you were to impose YOUR interpretation
at the EXCLUSION of others who have equal if not MORE backing historically than yours does.
I have argued, quite unpopularly, that by religious freedom you and others of your belief
have equal right to defend your interpretation. So good job with that, but it still does not give
you the right to supercede or exclude the interpretations of others which have even MORE established historical backing that is more consistent with the rest
of the history and meaning of the Constitution and natural laws.
I am all for defending and including the beliefs and opinions of the minority,
and believe you have equal right to your interpretation, or the First Amendment and Fourteenth would be violated.
(A)
10 PENNSYLVANIA
had no militia due largely in part to the Quaker/Pacifist active influence among the population
Of Arms and the Law: Leonard Levy's "Origins of the Bill of Rights"
Leonard Levy's "Origins of the Bill of Rights"
POSTED BY DAVID HARDY · 22 AUGUST 2005 04:27 PM
Just got Leonard Levy's "Origins of the Bill of Rights." (He's the late, great legal historian who some years ago won the Pulitzer for his history of the 5th Amendment). Levy devotes an entire chapter to the Second Amendment, arguing that it's an individual right. He says that the claim that Miller v. US ruled for a collective right "misleads." He rejects claims that "bear arms" (as opposed to "keep") relates only to military use, pointing out that the Pennsylvania minority's demand for a bill of rights used "bear arms" to describe use in self-defense and even hunting, and that PA at the point in time was the only State without a militia organization (the large Quaker population and its passifism accounting for that).
A WII vet himself, Levy added that "If all that was meant was the right to be a soldier or to serve in the military, whether in the militia or in the army, it would hardly be a cherished right and would never have reached constitutional status in the Bill of Rights. The 'right' to be a soldier does not make much sense."
(B) RE: law abiding citizens interpretation
NONCITIZENS AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT
Mixed interpretations, over noncitizens, where courts have been split.
the traditional interpretation was citizens, and the growing population and political inclusion of noncitizens
may have challenged this interpretation, as we are seeing today with immigration laws challenging
the equal rights and protections of citizens vs. noncitizens.
From my experience and understanding of natural laws, there is more consensus that
the purpose would be for complying with law and not violating laws; as it makes no
sense that the law would support enabling criminals or "enemies of the law/state" to commit violations.
That would be the equivalent of "aiding and abetting" to give arms to anyone with criminal intent.
it would violate the right of people to security in their persons houses and effects,
and threaten the equal protections to defend any such right to use arms with the intent of breaking laws.
But since govt cannot prove intent until after there is due process and someone is convicted,
then the law cannot try to prescribe this. But by natural laws, and the spirit of the law, I find
there is no question that people agree that the law does NOT INTEND to enable abuse of arms to commit crimes
and violate rights of others. the objections I have found involve due process, in that there is no way to
police intent in advance or it would start infringing on rights and liberties. But the spirit of the law would imply
the legal use of arms is for defense of law not for violations, that's just common sense of what people would consent to.
(C) as for how to deal with these dual interpretations
1. I see no problem in some people believing in organized militia
and others being okay with individual gun ownership as long as there is proper
training in the laws, procedures of law enforcement where people follow the same
procedures as the police so there is no question on who is complying or not,
and possibly introducing the idea of insurance required in case of abuse or accidents,
similar to car insurance that is decided by state.
2. for criminal disorders or incompetence that poses dangers to public health and safety,
I believe that better means of reporting abuses and threats for standard screening
could be agreed upon per district on the level of civic or neighborhood associations
that can pass their own ordinances against drug abuse or dangerous dogs or
requirements for screening/training for gun owners. If the local organizations
decide democratically where all residents agree to the standards they elect to
comply with and enforce, that can be completely constitutional for them to choose.
What people don't want is for outside authority to dictate what standards or
interpretations can regulate their rights etc. So if people agree and elect these
freely, then any interpretation or standard can be chosen for enforcement by consent of those residents.
Including how to report potential threats, require screening or counseling for dangerous conditions
found, or mediate and resolve conflicts by consent of the parties in order to reside in such a district that
has implemented such a policy by agreement of the property owners and residents in order to live there.
I don't have a problem with accommodating diverse interpretations,
but don't think it is constitutional to abuse govt to impose one or the other
where it threatens people of different beliefs or excludes them from public policy
which should protect and represent people regardless of beliefs and interpretations.
We just can't be in the business of imposing on each other's beliefs,
or that also violates Constitutional rights and protections under the First, Fourteenth and other Amendments.
Well, you want the right to be just for law abiding. However a right is ONLY a right when EVERYONE has the right, otherwise it's a privilege, it's that simple.
This doesn't mean criminals can't have that right infringed upon.
Well, if anyone, I mean ANYONE can show me anything that takes away my interpretation, which isn't based on what I want, but on what I've seen. Usually I get people just throwing insults because they can't argue with me.
People have the right to argue as they like, they have the right to be wrong.
Pennsylvania had the 111th infantry regiment. It fought in the War of Independence and changed names through time.
111th Infantry Regiment (United States) - Wikipedia
"
At the time people weren't fervent about their 2A rights as they are now. It was all practical. You have the right to own weapons so the militia has a ready supply, but the reality was that individuals had weapons as a general part of their daily life, hunting as a source of food must have been great at the time, seeing as most people lived in rural areas. When things demanded it was your DUTY to join the militia. However they were protecting the militia so they made it your right as well as your duty.
- 747 Constituted 7 December 1747 by official recognition of the Associators, founded 21 November 1747 in Philadelphia by Benjamin Franklin.
- 1747 Organized 29 December 1747 as Associated Regiment of Foot of Philadelphia.
- 1775 Reorganized as Associates of the City and Liberties of Philadelphia, with five Battalions.
- 1777 Reorganized as the Philadelphia Brigade of Militia, commanded by Brigadier General John Cadwalader.
- 1793 Reorganized 11 April 1793 as Volunteer Infantry Elements of 1st Brigade, 1st Division Pennsylvania Militia.
- 1814 Volunteer Infantry Companies of 1st Brigade reorganized as 1st Regiment, Pennsylvania Volunteer Infantry, commanded by Colonel Clement C. Biddle; entered federal service 24 August 1814 and relieved 4 January 1815.
- 1816 Reorganized 19 March 1816 as Volunteer Infantry Elements of 1st Division."
Now what we have here might be that the militia disbanded and was then reorganized in times of need. Which is exactly what a Militia is. You don't need a militia in order to have the right to be in the militia. When people feel the need for a militia, it can be reorganized and then individuals will join the militia.
You think I'm imposing my view on others? Well you can think that, I'm not too bothered. However all I'm doing is taking historical documents and using it to show what the Founding Fathers thought. That the vast majority of people (who also have agendas) will ignore these documents is quite telling.
Very good frigidweirdo you have presented the best backing and historical justification
for the interpretation you support which I have seen up to this point.
Again, I still believe you have the right to your interpretation even without any such backing,
but by the nature of religious freedom and equal protection of the laws from discrimination by creed.
In order to protect the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to security and protections of the law,
I find it legally necessary to educate and train all citizens and residents in Constitutional law enforcement and ethics.
Otherwise if people do not have knowledge or experience with the laws and ethics that the public and community agrees to enforce,
that is what causes breaches of the peace, abuses and violations.
So my definition of what is necessary for citizenship IS based on teaching people to be law abiding
and to use that educational, training and conflict resolution process to SCREEN for criminal disorders, illnesses or other incompetence
that would render someone "disabled" or "unable" to comply with laws without additional assistance, guardianship or supervision.
Those are my beliefs which I equally defend my right to exercise and enforce by
the same First and Fourteenth Amendment I would invoke to protect yours.
The difference I have found, is that I am willing to do the work and invest the resources
and set up the system in order to enforce the interpretation I support.
However, I find too many other people NOT willing to pay the cost or consequences of
THEIR interpretations. That is why people argue against gun rights because there is no responsibility for the cost of abuse.
Or against abortion rights or prolife beliefs where the advocates aren't taking responsibility for the costs to enforce those policies.
frigidweirdo are you REALLY willing to shoulder the cost to enforce your interpretation?
I have described what I believe it will take to ensure the right to bear arms is
exercised within a "law abiding" environment that is constitutional where it
is locally elected and enforced.
What about what you are asking, to require people to join militias?
Would you be okay with the proposal to reward districts for reduced
crime rates by the residents working WITH police and military to
offer the SAME training and screening for all citizens/residents seeking to bear arms?
That's not the same as joining a militia to have the same training and screening.
I suggest adding this to the neighborhood or district policies, or giving tax
breaks where communities effectively reduce crime and can invest those
dollars into their schools or programs for daycare, health care or elderly care
as an incentive to promote LAW ABIDING citizenry.
So I would focus on compliance with laws by education, training and job creation,
and not so much on "joining an official militia" unless you count citizen patrols and security training?
I still see it more as citizen based, not as militia run.
The militia, even the "first responders" cannot be the only ones trained
and relied upon for emergency response and criminal activity.
frigidweirdo as recent events in Texas showed, with both widespread
storms and flooding that sent independent teams to do rescue work,
and with the mass shooting that required citizens to intervene since
there were no police, we will always need active citizens IN ADDITION
to any such "militia" or dedicated emergency/first responders.
But if you want to call these a form of "trained militia" then you
and I are just using different terms for the same concept of
having trained citizens to ensure enforcement of laws and safety.
I just don't see everyone agreeing to be REQUIRED to join a militia
group, though I could see people agreeing to uniform neighborhood
ordinances when they are equally involved in the process of making that policy
that represents the residents and owners in that community.
If this takes the form of a "militia" then fine, but if it just means all
community members agree to work with police to go through the
same training to understand and comply with the same procedures,
that doesn't necessarily mean JOINING the police or militia to be enforcing the same
policies and standards for security in that district.
So I would think my interpretation is more inclusive of
yours and others, while yours would exclude people who don't
agree with the condition of joining a militia.
And the interpretation that includes more people's beliefs equally
would seem to me to be more constitutionally consistent
by not discriminating or excluding
but by accommodating and protecting people equally
regardless of their beliefs and interpretations.
I think the first problem here is that you take me for someone who has an interpretation in order to fit an agenda. The closest you're going to get there is that my agenda is the truth.
I didn't decide this to be the truth, I just found out that it WAS THE TRUTH.
If you really want to get to the places where it's not about truth but it's about how you think something would work in the future, then this topic enlarges itself massively. But this topic is about one single thing. I have said plenty of times what I think the biggest problem is in the US, and why the gun issue will never be solved, nor any other problem. The electoral system.
However your points that Texas shows that people need guns, my point would be that in the UK and most of the Western World, these things don't usually happen, except in the US.
The reality is that in the US you are four times more likely to die with your gun that you are in the UK to die without a gun.
135 police officers died in the line of duty last year in the US, zero died in the UK. All police officers in the US are armed.
You think your interpretation is more inclusive, I think my interpretation is the truth.
To tell you the honest truth, frigidweirdo
I'm sure the founders back then argued this same way, didn't agree either,
and ended up with the law written as it was to accommodate BOTH.
So it BOTH included the right of people individually
FOR STATES THAT AGREED TO PASS LAWS RESPECTING THAT WAY
as well as allowed for state militias
FOR STATES THAT AGREED TO PASS LAWS BASED ON THAT.
The common factor was the STATES would pass laws
and not the Feds controlling all the access to arms,
because that's what they feared would get corrupted,oppressive and tyrannical
if there wasn't some check against Federal abuse of collective authority.
SEE below:
1 said:These interpretations tend to lean in one of two ways. The first is that the amendment was meant to ensure that individuals have the absolute right to own firearms; the second is that the amendment was meant to ensure that States could form, arm, and maintain their own militias. Either way, it is a bar to federal action only, because the 2nd Amendment has not been incorporated by the Supreme Court to apply to the states. This means that within its own constitution, a state may be as restrictive or non-restrictive as it wishes to be in the regulation of firearms; likewise, private rules and regulations may prohibit or encourage firearms. For example, if a housing association wishes to bar any firearm from being held within its borders, it is free to do so.
As the founders fought the same arguments we have today re Federal vs. State authority, I'm sure they disagreed and argued about who had the right to bear arms
in this same divided context. (I also read into certain state histories with issues over Catholics having equal right to bear arms because of the fear of abuse/violent crime.)
As for the citation on PA, I apologize for not looking up the direct reference previously
so I cited wrong online. (My excuse is my copy of Levy's "Origin of the Bill of Rights" got rescued from the flood and stashed in storage, so I took a shortcut and tried to search for a paraphrase instead of getting the source verbatim, Sorry!)
The CORRECT statement is that PA didn't have a state militia at the time of its STATE constitution which cited the right to bear arms, so clearly the STATE law on the right to bear arms didn't refer to state militia because they didn't have one. Sorry I miscited that.
Here is the corrected explanation:
2 said:In the state constitutions written around the time of the Declaration of Independence, the right to bear arms was presented in different ways. The Articles of Confederation specified that the states should maintain their militias, but did not mention a right to bear arms. Thus, any such protections would have to come from state law. The Virginia Declaration of Rights, though it mentioned the militia, did not mention a right to bear arms — the right might be implied, since the state did not furnish weapons for militiamen. The constitutions of North Carolina and Massachusetts did guarantee the right, to ensure proper defense of the states. The constitution of Pennsylvania guaranteed the right with no mention of the militia (at the time, Pennsylvania had no organized militia). One of the arguments of the Anti-Federalists during the ratification debates was that the new nation did not arm the militias, an odd argument since neither did the U.S. under the Articles. Finally, Madison's original proposal for the Bill of Rights mentioned the individual right much more directly than the final result that came out of Congress.
Constitutional Topic: The Second Amendment - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
frigidweirdo thank you for at least explaining the history behind your conclusion.
I usually get the explanation that the big fear at the time was the British Crown and forces
taking away weapons from the colonists in order to keep them subordinated.
So the same fear was that if Federal govt required only militia to have weapons
that same scenario could happen of abusing militia to oppress the people.
That's the usual argument in favor of individuals retaining the right to check and defend against that as well!
But since you challenge that, I asked another source
and got yet another explanation I hadn't heard before:
If state militia had the right to take arms against federal govt
then the fight for Southern secession would have been legal.
I kinda get that argument, but still see it as whoever is enforcing
laws is in the right, and whoever is abusing force to violate laws
is what makes it unlawful. In the case of the Civil War there was
right and wrong on both sides: slavery was a violation of natural
laws by which people should have equal protections of rights,
but the federal govt should have respected the sovereign
consent of states and settled the conflict peaceably without force.
The fact both sides resorted to force ends up violating protections on both sides
because they both failed to resolve the conflicts peaceably by democratic process.
So I don't follow that argument
as easily as I do the historical argument
that the Second Amendment was influenced
by colonists having to take up arms to stop
oppression by collective govt, so they didn't want
to concede this right to bear arms to any higher govt that could become corrupted.
You can believe you have the truth
but so do people who cite history to argue the other way.
Again, honestly, I believe this is the same boat
the founders were in who didn't agree either
on federal vs. state authority and the right of the people.
I'm sure the Founding Fathers did disagree on many things. I'm sure they didn't disagree on the term "sun" for the sun.
Bear arms was used in the manner I have shown all over the place, and the Supreme Court has upheld that meaning for hundreds of years.
I mean, if you have anything where "bear arms" didn't mean this, then by all means show it and try and put it into your argument that it doesn't mean that in the Second Amendment. However, when looking at historical documents, when looking at logic, it always means the same thing.
Here's a question.
The context of the Second Amendment is the militia. Why would you go and protect a right to carry guns which doesn't protect the militia, and why wouldn't protect the individual's right to be in the militia when you've just protected his right to own guns so the militia has guns?
Guns don't kill people, people do. A militia full of guns but no people is pointless, right?