What is Meant by "Well Regulated"?

[frigidweirdo]

Wrong. Public school grounds are just that public. They have laws, rules and regulations regarding their use.

Can the school playground be used for the public?

Answer (1 of 5): Whether a school playground can be used by the public depends on a variety of factors, including the policies of the school, local laws and regulations, and other factors. In some cases, schools may permit the public to use their playgrounds during certain times, such as after s...

www.quora.com

A public schools playground is public property- it is property paid for by taxes - However the school can restrict its use during school hours for child safety etc.

The regulations to exclude adults would have to be greater than the constitutional right to peaceably assemble.

A lone adult, without an assemblage can be excluded as a danger to the students.

The White House is "public", doesn't mean you have free reign to do what you like there

 

[Blues Man]

Second Amendment​

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.
​

What is the Militia?​

The Founders believed that all men between the ages of 18 and 45 who were physically capable were members of the Militia. It was up to these men to be the first line of defense against any enemy attack.

​

In United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939), we explained that "the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense." —Supreme Court of the United States (District of Columbia v. Heller) Page 22​

​

​

The Militia is not created by Congress, nor is Congress empowered to create a militia.

Unlike armies and navies, which Congress is given the power to create ("to raise . . . Armies"; "to provide . . . a Navy," Art. I, §8, cls. 12–13), the Militia is assumed by Article I already to be in existence. Congress is given the power to "provide for calling forth the militia," §8, cl. 15; and the power not to create, but to "organiz[e]" it—and not to organize "a" militia, which is what one would expect if the Militia were to be a federal creation, but to organize "the" Militia, connoting a body already in existence, ibid., cl. 16. This is fully consistent with the ordinary definition of the Militia as all able-bodied men. —Supreme Court of the United States (District of Columbia v. Heller) Page 23​

What does well regulated mean?​

Finally, the adjective "well-regulated" implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. —Supreme Court of the United States (District of Columbia v. Heller) Page 23​

The Second amendment was not about the militia it was about the people's right to keep and bear arms.

And where does it state in the Heller decision that discipline must be the government that provided by the fucking government?

 

[Ringtone]

[1] The Second amendment was not about the militia it was about the people's right to keep and bear arms.

[2] And where does it state in the Heller decision that discipline must be the government that provided by the fucking government?

Dude, you're talking to a staunch defender of the individual's right to keep and bear arms! You're reading things into my post that aren't there.

Response to point 1:

For the sake of accuracy, I think what you meant to say is that the Second Amendment pertains to the Militia's role vis-a-vis the security of a the several free states of our constitutional Republic, but the main clause strictly pertains to the inalienable "right of the people to keep and bear Arms".

Where did I say anything to the contrary?

Response to point 2:

I'm quoting Miller and Heller verbatim! The real question is what kind of drugs are you on?

Given that neither Heller nor I specified that the government (local, state, or federal) is to provide the fucking discipline for the Militia, why did you ask me that question?

National Vision provides affordable eye exams and glasses. Check it out.

 

[Ringtone]

The reference to ‘militia’ in the Second Amendment is an anachronism, of course – there are no more ‘militia,’ not since 1903, hence the Heller Court’s individual right ruling.

And Supreme Court rulings prior to 1903 have held that the Second Amendment’s reference to ‘the militia’ concerns solely ‘militia’ sanctioned and authorized only by state governments or the Federal government.

A collection of armed private citizens does not constitute a ‘militia’; a collection of armed private citizens cannot unilaterally declare themselves a ‘militia’ claiming to be ‘exempt’ from state and Federal firearm regulatory measures.

Last, private citizens have no ‘right’ to access the same firearms as a state’s national guard or the Federal military.

Except for the last paragraph, everything in the above is total bullshit! All one need do is read United States v. Miller and District of Columbia v. Heller to know that once again you are a lying ass dog of a leftist bootlicking whore.

You're a faggot, a baby killer, and a homofascist to boot.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Access to firearms has nothing to do with regulation; and there’s nothing in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment that authorizes the notion of armed citizens ‘self-regulating’ completely absent government control and oversight.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms is to do so in the service and defense of the state, as authorized and controlled by government.

That’s why the Heller Court saw fit to contrive the individual right unconnected with militia service, because the Second Amendment recognized a collective right.

And the collective right interpretation of the Second Amendment would allow banning individuals from possessing firearms because they weren’t in the service of a militia – which is why the Heller Court invalidated the collective right interpretation.

Indeed, Heller was about the individual right versus the collective right.

Regulation has different meanings. One of them being "to bring order, method, or uniformity", not necessarily restrictions or limitations. Why would the militia, to secure a free state, require the government to rule it, or to make laws for it?

The security of a free state would require the people to be ready for defense should the need arise, and have certain provisions, one of them being a firearm. I think there were other things required, like a nap sack, a certain amount of gun power, lead shot, and a few other things.

The 2A was indeed referring to everyone, but it was not a collective or a group. It's just a wording thing, if it had said "the right of the person to keep and bear arms" might have been confusing I guess. "The people" doesn't have to refer to a specific group, the people can refer to every individual.

 

[Failzero]

Statist Progressives & Maxist /Socialist Trotskyites are UNITED in the Gungrabbin

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What is Meant by "Well Regulated"?

It means, fundamentally, whether one subscribes to the collective theory or the individual theory, that it was the Framers’ original intent that the possession of arms by the people would be subject to government regulation and control.

The people have a right to bear arms – but not an unlimited or absolute right, a right subject to government limits and restrictions.

 

[ThisIsMe]

It means, fundamentally, whether one subscribes to the collective theory or the individual theory, that it was the Framers’ original intent that the possession of arms by the people would be subject to government regulation and control.

The people have a right to bear arms – but not an unlimited or absolute right, a right subject to government limits and restrictions.

Well, if you read other documents and quotes from people in that time, it would point to a different conclusion. They often cited protecting one's self from the tyranny of government. Being restricted by a government that would be tyrannical would be quite contradictory.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Even if the court ruled that one must be a member of a militia, or intend to join one, for the second to apply, the ninth and tenth would still protect the right to purchase, store, practice with and carry, firearms.

The Supreme Court has already made that ruling, Presser v. Illinois (1886), holding that a militia can exist solely as authorized by a state government or the Federal government.

If a state or local jurisdiction prohibits the open carrying of firearms, claiming to be a member of a ‘militia’ does not void that prohibition.

Again, private armed citizens cannot ‘unilaterally’ declare themselves a ‘militia’; there is no such thing as a ‘stand-alone’ militia.

And those private individuals would be subject to the same government limits and restrictions as any other gunowner.

Last, the 9th and 10th Amendments have nothing whatsoever to do with possessing or carrying firearms.

 

[Failzero]

It means when we form up and fall in with Sheriffs to protect our Towns & Counties we won't shoot your ass ( Unless you shoot first )

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I'm a little surprised that Biden has not federalized the Texas National Guard on the border to stand them down.

Nothing ‘surprising’ about it – President Biden is correct to not do such an idiotic thing.

We know such a move is idiotic because Abbott did exactly that – and it was an unmitigated failure.

https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrJ7J98c4pi58AASjdXNyoA;_ylu=Y29sbwNiZjEEcG9zAzUEdnRpZANMT0NDRjAxQ18xBHNlYwNzcg--/RV=2/RE=1653269500/RO=10/RU=https%3a%2f%2fwww.nytimes.com%2f2022%2f01%2f19%2fus%2ftexas-national-guard-greg-abbott.html/RK=2/RS=8UAS4jkpgNAPZvuhFtHg87mpnzc-

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

He picked a place that would have the least resistance liar.

You’re another rightwing liar.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I might seem a lot of things to you.

The reality is if you have a group of people and you say "the group has the right, not the individual" then the government can come along and take individuals out of the group and say "well, the group still has the right, but you have no right, so shut up and get out of the group"

You're saying that because individuals have to be in a group for there to be a right, that only the group has the right.
I'm saying that if only the group has the right, then no individuals do, which means the government can stop ALL INDIVIDUALS from peacefully assembling, as long as it doesn't stop "the group". So if 100,000 people want to protest, they can choose two people who are "the group" and tell everyone else to go away.

Your way DOESN'T WORK.

You’re both right in many respects; both making valid points.

Does an individual have the right to peaceably assemble when he’s alone? Perhaps not – but his right to free speech would still protect him from government preemption.

And both the right to free speech (individual) and the right to peaceably assemble (collective) would still be subject to government regulation, such as time, place, and manner restrictions.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You’re another rightwing liar

No lie on my part liar.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Nothing ‘surprising’ about it – President Biden is correct to not do such an idiotic thing.

Given his record, it is surprising that Team Biden passed up a chance to do an idiotic thing.

We know such a move is idiotic because Abbott did exactly that – and it was an unmitigated failure.

https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrJ7J98c4pi58AASjdXNyoA;_ylu=Y29sbwNiZjEEcG9zAzUEdnRpZANMT0NDRjAxQ18xBHNlYwNzcg--/RV=2/RE=1653269500/RO=10/RU=https%3a%2f%2fwww.nytimes.com%2f2022%2f01%2f19%2fus%2ftexas-national-guard-greg-abbott.html/RK=2/RS=8UAS4jkpgNAPZvuhFtHg87mpnzc-

As a former Army NCO and officers, I don't find it newsworthy that troops complain about something.

 

[Seymour Flops]

The Supreme Court has already made that ruling, Presser v. Illinois (1886), holding that a militia can exist solely as authorized by a state government or the Federal government.

If a state or local jurisdiction prohibits the open carrying of firearms, claiming to be a member of a ‘militia’ does not void that prohibition.

Again, private armed citizens cannot ‘unilaterally’ declare themselves a ‘militia’; there is no such thing as a ‘stand-alone’ militia.

And those private individuals would be subject to the same government limits and restrictions as any other gunowner.

The Presser decision was another wrong decision by the USSC. That's why it's important to go by the words of the constitution.

It is no coincidence that the Presser decision came in the wake of the freeing of black people post Civil War and their being given the same rights as whites, including the right to keep and bear arms.

Do you think that freed slaves had the right to form a militia for the purpose of protecting themselves from the KKK?

Or do you go by Presser v. Illinois?

For a little background on Herman Presser, he was a German-American labor organizer who founded the Instruction and Defense Association in response to the private armies, Such as the Pinkerton Detective Agency in the hire of the company owners.

http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/law_review_articles/presser.PDF

Last, the 9th and 10th Amendments have nothing whatsoever to do with possessing or carrying firearms.

They have to do with every right and power not specified in the U.S. Constitution.

 

[meaner gene]

Yeah, sure, show up at a school house, with a group of 10 people without permission to occupy the playground and see how many rights you have...lol. The right to remain silent and the right to an attorney maybe.

I might seem a lot of things to you.

The reality is if you have a group of people and you say "the group has the right, not the individual" then the government can come along and take individuals out of the group and say "well, the group still has the right, but you have no right, so shut up and get out of the group"

You're saying that because individuals have to be in a group for there to be a right, that only the group has the right.
I'm saying that if only the group has the right, then no individuals do, which means the government can stop ALL INDIVIDUALS from peacefully assembling, as long as it doesn't stop "the group". So if 100,000 people want to protest, they can choose two people who are "the group" and tell everyone else to go away.

Your way DOESN'T WORK.

Have you ever heard of a class action lawsuit. The group has the right to sue, not the individual. But as a member of the group, you can't be excluded from recovering as in your no individual right theory.
The fact is, tight to assemble is a group right, and being a member of the group (freedom of association) is what grants the individual the right to be in the group.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Have you ever heard of a class action lawsuit. The group has the right to sue, not the individual. But as a member of the group, you can't be excluded from recovering as in your no individual right theory.
The fact is, tight to assemble is a group right, and being a member of the group (freedom of association) is what grants the individual the right to be in the group.

The individual has the right to sue, too.

 

[meaner gene]

The individual has the right to sue, too.

The class action and individual lawsuits are mutually exclusive. You can only be a member of one of them.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You’re both right in many respects; both making valid points.

Does an individual have the right to peaceably assemble when he’s alone? Perhaps not – but his right to free speech would still protect him from government preemption.

And both the right to free speech (individual) and the right to peaceably assemble (collective) would still be subject to government regulation, such as time, place, and manner restrictions.

It's still not collective. It might require two or more people, but the individual still has the right.