When 2nd Amendment Saves Lives

[frigidweirdo]

And you’re entitled to your opinion as to the meaning of the Amendment.

As a fact of law, however, the collective right argument was rejected in favor of the individual right.

And as that right is unconnected with militia service, the individual right concerns the carrying of firearms by citizens – in or outside of the home.

That the Supreme Court got it ‘wrong’ isn’t a valid argument; that the Heller Court was trying to appease conservatives is likewise not a valid argument.

In time that may change with a future Court overturning Heller/McDonald.

Until that time Heller/McDonald is current Second Amendment jurisprudence; it is what the Second Amendment means, as determined by the Supreme Court.

We're not talking about the collective rights argument. I don't agree it exists, you don't agree it exists, the Supreme Court does and never has.

The reality is that everything you've said isn't in response to what I wrote.

It's like you think I'm saying one thing, because it's the usual argument you have with people who disagree with you. But it's not, because you're arguing things I'm not saying.

 

[frigidweirdo]

“Such as”

As in, one among others, one example of others – in this case the right to carry outside of the home as well as inside the home.

We know that the right to carry outside of the home is in the Second Amendment because the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals addressed a case from Illinois concerning that right in 2013 – an appellate court would not have reviewed such a law if carrying outside of the home was not within the scope of the Second Amendment.

We know that the right to carry outside of the home is in the Second Amendment because the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case concerning the carrying of firearms outside of the home this Term – again, the Court would not have decided to do so if the issue was outside of the purview of the Second Amendment.

The right to carry outside of the home is in fact in the Second Amendment, as determined by the Heller Court.

Except they didn't say this.

No, you don't know the 2nd Amendment protects the supposed right to carry outside of the home. You're saying a 7th Circuit Court of Appeals would never, ever do anything that was wrong?

I mean, the Supreme Court did something that was wrong. Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857)

Worst decision ever by the Supreme Court, said African Americans couldn't be American Citizens. Yeah.... er... well... if the Supreme Court can do Dred Scott, then the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals can be wrong.

And no, Heller doesn't protect any right to carry outside the home. If it did, the Supreme Court wouldn't be accepting this new case.

 

[frigidweirdo]

What I think is irrelevant – it has nothing to do with what I think.

It is a settled, accepted fact of law that the Second Amendment enshrines an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with militia service.

The right to self-defense.

And the right to carry a firearm both in the home and outside.

My citation from Heller was one of many in the decision documenting the right to carry a firearm.

Your argument is with Scalia and the four other justices who voted with him – not me.

Actually, what you think has everything to do with it. Why? Because I'm talking with you. Not with anyone else.

"It is a settled, accepted fact of law that the Second Amendment enshrines an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with militia service."

Not sure what you want to say here.

You come up with the individual right, I agree. The "right to possess" is the right to KEEP arms, the right to OWN arms. I thought we were talking about the right to BEAR ARMS.

"The right to self-defense." So, the right to own a weapon is the right to self defense? Or the right to bear arms is the right to self defense? You'd better get it clear in your head which one, first.

Look, if you don't want to discuss the Supreme Court case, if you want to simply say "the Supreme Court says so", then this conversation is over. If you want to discuss this issue, then carry on, but without the whining about how it's not about what you think.

 

[frigidweirdo]

In your opinion, not as a fact of law.

And the Second Amendment is not ‘vague’ – to understand its meaning and scope one needs only to read Heller/McDonald.

Right.... read those cases, and don't read what the Founding Fathers had to say on the matter.... because what the Founding Fathers had to say is rather inconvenient for you.

 

[Kilroy2]

Wrong.

It’s the 14th Amendment, substantive due process, and incorporation doctrine – applying provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states and local jurisdictions.

In 2010 the Second Amendment was incorporated to the states and local jurisdictions (see McDonald v. Chicago).

in a 5 to 4 decision. Alito states that Our decision in Heller points unmistakably to the answer. Self-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day, and in Heller, we held that individual self-defense is “the central component” of the Second Amendment right.

Yet how can that be the central component as it clearly about raising an army for defense of the nation. Which was the primary issue in a country that wanted to succeed from the British who were going to come. How difficult would it be to say to protect wants private property.

Thus the 3 previous court rulers which were done close to the same time in period had a different prospective of the issue.

Yet in the 20th century the "British are not coming" So the 5/4 majority based it decision on protecting individuals home and what the states can't do. It is a broad interpretation and apply modern day issues with some they wrote in the 17/18th century.

Especially when you need to quote the 14th amendment to back up the 2nd amendment as if it can't stand alone as proof of your decisions.

The minority blast this with

The question we should be answering in this case is whether the Constitution “guarantees individuals a fundamental right,” enforceable against the States, “to possess a functional, personal firearm, including a handgun, within the home.”

yet the majority say no the state cannot do that and base it on the 14th amendment. But hey the case was not about the 14th amendment.

and he clearly states that the petitioner never mentions the 14th amendment in their case. It like the judges just make stuff up to support their decisions. Judges using modern times to interpret what they meant 2 centuries ago.

Well I going to sum it up with who needs gun ownership more - the 17th and 18th century person or the 21st century person.

When they drafted the 2nd amendment. They were using muskets and flintlock pistols. They could hold a single round at a time. Gentlemen settle their differences with a duo at 10 paces.

 

[2aguy]

There is no right to "be in the militia" protected by the 2nd Amendment.

Defining who is obligated to serve and who is allowed to enroll and is allowed to serve is entirely a power of Congress. The organized militia is an entity and structure that is entirely a product of the Constitution and is entirely dependent upon the Constitution and the duly enacted laws by Congress (Militia Act of 1792). A militia comprised of citizens may only be called up, organized, trained and deployed following the process and rules set-out in the Constitution.

Since the ratification of the Constitution there was not and never has been, a right for private citizens to form themselves into militia nor assemble armed and drill and parade with arms without a law of the state or Congress authorizing that action (See Presser v Illinois).

As an aside, states like Massachusetts with abolitionist goals wanted to enact state laws saying Blacks could be enrolled in their state's militias and were soundly rebuffed. The Militia Act only allowed the "free able-bodied white male citizen" of the state to enroll and serve.

Even after the 14th Amendment, the way southern states justified their racist, discriminatory laws disarming US CITIZENS who were Black, any right to keep and bear arms, was to associate their state's recognition of a right to arms with militia eligibility. Of course the 2nd Amendment and protecting Black's right to arms, while being a significant impetus for the 14th Amendment, was not incorporated under the 14th Amendment so the 2nd had no effect on those state laws. But federal militia law was the "law of the land" so Blacks remained disarmed in those states.



.

Again……. Thanks for the posts, please keep posting.

 

[2aguy]

They don’t – all the states allow for the concealed carry of firearms.

And the southern democrats allowed blacks to vote…..they just had to take a literacy test and pay a poll tax…….and those practices were seen for what they were, unconstitutional infringements on a basic Right.

 

[2aguy]

And if one is denied a permit to carry it’s because he’s a prohibited person – such as a convicted felon, undocumented immigrant, or someone adjudicated mentally ill.

Of course, prohibited persons aren’t allowed to possess a firearm at all, rendering a carry permit moot.

That is a lie and you know it. Democrats in New York and other democrat party controlled cities deny the Right because they state you have no “need” to carry and you were unable to prove a need….so you are wrong.

 

[2aguy]

Yet that was in 2008 and 2010 when the court changed it position. Yet if the court can change a previous ruling then it begs the question that the amendment is vague and people will have different opinions based on what? How they interpret it.

Its not vague….people like you pretend it is vague to attack the Right.

 

[2aguy]

Except they didn't say this.

No, you don't know the 2nd Amendment protects the supposed right to carry outside of the home. You're saying a 7th Circuit Court of Appeals would never, ever do anything that was wrong?

I mean, the Supreme Court did something that was wrong. Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857)

Worst decision ever by the Supreme Court, said African Americans couldn't be American Citizens. Yeah.... er... well... if the Supreme Court can do Dred Scott, then the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals can be wrong.

And no, Heller doesn't protect any right to carry outside the home. If it did, the Supreme Court wouldn't be accepting this new case.

Dipshit….in Dress the judge said one of the reasons they couldnt allow citizenship to free blacks is they would be able to own and carry guns…..

 

[Abatis]

You still would have to take the time period into consideration when the word was used in the 2nd amendment.

Militia when used over 200 years ago by a new nation that had no military forces does have a specific meaning in that time frame.

But the 2nd Amendment is not about the militia; the 2ndA has never been examined to inform on any aspect of militia organization, training or control (I'm talking about the cases where the Court decided disputes over militia operation and control).

The declaratory clause is just a statement of principle, nothing more; it 'means something' but it is legally inert, it has no legal operation. The declaratory clause of the 2nd Amendment only re-affirms what once was a universally understood and accepted maxim; that the armed citizenry dispenses with the need for a standing army (in times of peace) and those armed citizens stand as a barrier to foreign invasion and domestic tyranny (thus ensuring the free state).

Still apply that to todays standard when the US as a country has a fully armed military. Militia in todays world would only still apply to state military, , state guard, state militia, or state military reserve.

But Congress and the President, the national entities the state militias were designed to counterbalance, destroyed the state militias and absorbed state militia powers into the federal power system.

The people, the citizens, who possess the right to keep and bear arms, who because of that general ownership of arms allowed the formation of a militia, have never relinquished their duty and their role in this dynamic, even though the government extinguished the organized militia.

In Federalist 46, Madison speaks at length of this dynamic, this tension between the national vs. the state governments who enjoyed the support of the armed citizenry. The allegiances of the armed citizens was not to the national government, it was their state's sovereignty and autonomy and the protection of their personal rights from all government intrusion:

"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 highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops."​

​

​

Breaking those numbers down, Madison denotes:

1) a national standing army being 1% of the total population, a 30K force derived from a 3M population.
2) the general militia being 25% of the population; 750K male citizens capable of bearing arms and working in concert who are not in the standing army.
3) a 500K subset within the 750K general militia that comprise 17% of the population; comprised of "citizens with arms in their hands . . . fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted" by the states.

The fundamental principle and proposition Madison is explaining is that the largest standing army that can be maintained, is "opposed" by armed citizens by a ratio of 17 armed citizens for each soldier.

Today, the "standing army" numbers 2.25M active duty and reserve forces and the percentage of "citizens with arms in their hands" has expanded to 25% of the population, to approx. 80,000,000 . . .

This gives us a "Madison ratio" of 35 armed citizens opposing each "soldier" in today's national "standing army".

They exist but when called to duty they do not bring there own guns as it is expected that the state will supply them with weapons.

Which further differentiates today's standing army from any militia spoken of by the founders / framers and certainly the one established by the Constitution. Today's "militia" is organized and directed under clause 12, not clauses 15 & 16.

.

 

[Abatis]

Except in its earliest ruling on the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court held that American citizens had no inherent right to bear arms. According to the highest court in the land, the Second Amendment only protected the states’ right to maintain a militia, not an individual’s right to possess firearms.

Actually, Cruikshank says the opposite. The Supreme Court in Cruikshank recognizes the right to bear arms, for the purpose of self defense, in public, as being being possessed and exercised by those two former slaves, then citizens at the heart of the case. Have you ever read the case?

United States v. Cruikshank (1875)

The Supreme Court overruled the convictions of Cruikshank and other White League members, arguing that the First and Second Amendments apply only to the federal government, not state or local governments nor individual citizens.

Do you think that statement supports your belief above that Cruikshank "held" that, "that American citizens had no inherent right to bear arms" and that "according to the highest court in the land, the Second Amendment only protected the states’ right to maintain a militia, not an individual’s right to possess firearms?

Is that what you get from the statement that the 2nd Amendment only applied "to the federal government, not state or local governments nor individual citizens"? Is that what your take is?

Presser v. Illinois (1886)
the Second Amendment did not apply to the states and so the states were free to regulate or ban private militias and guns in any way they chose.

Well, if you believe Presser establishes that "state's were free to regulate and ban . . . guns in any way they chose", it's obvious you never read the case . . .

Actually, Presser says the exact opposite, Presser says states are absolutely forbidden to disarm their citizens because the citizens comprise a shared defensive resource that the federal government relies on. The Presser Court impresses a federal enforcement of the citizen's federal right to keep and bear arms without any reference to or reliance on, the 2nd Amendment.

The Court is enforcing an unavoidable principle that is an outcome of the Constitution's promise to the states to forever provide a republican form of government. The Court unequivocally states it is a foundational principle of the nation that the armed citizens are the reserve military force of both the nation and the states and even laying the 2nd Amendment out of view, the states can not disarm their citizens because the nation might need those citizens and their guns to defend the nation.

McDonald v. Chicago (2010)

yeah you guys finally win won and the current argument is now in the books. So within the last 15 years they changed there position from what was held for over 100 years.

Still assault rifles and weapons are still off the table and no 2nd amendment rights with these types of weapons. The issues are still state decided with these types of weapons.

okay it just goes back to my original argument that the state decides and the 2nd amendment is vague as the court has flip flop on it from the beginning to the current time frame.

The only thing more fantastical than your claims about the RKBA and the 2nd Amendment would be you claiming to have seen Obama riding sidesaddle on a rainbow farting unicorn waving a double ended dildo . . .

.

 

[Abatis]

Cruikshank and Presser said there's a right to carry a gun for self defense in public?

I don't think so.

I didn't claim the Court said, I said the Court "recognized".

The facts of Cruikshank and how the Court integrated those facts in its explanations of the RKBA and the 2nd Amendment, shows the Court recognizes that the right -allegedly- violated by Cruikshank, that of "bearing arms for lawful purpose" is synonymous with the rights recognized and secured by the 2nd Amendment.

The Court states that the right described in the indictment, that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose" is "not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is IT in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that IT shall not be infringed; . . . "

Now, does the 2nd Amendment in fact, expressly say that 'the right of bearing arms for lawful purpose, shall not be infringed?

NO.

The Court obviously recognizes that -- this amorphous, constitutionally undefined "right of bearing arms for lawful purpose", as exercised by Levi Nelson and Alexander Tillman, citizens of the United States, of African descent and persons of color, that in action was carrying guns for self defense, in public, is the, "IT" that the 2nd Amendment declares shall not be infringed, thus is legally interchangeable with "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".

In Presser the Court removed all doubt on this point.

In the Presser opinion, Justice Woods removed the Cruikshank case specific language (quoting the indictment of Cruikshank et al) and inserted the familiar words from the 2nd Amendment.

Woods characterized that bold rewording of Cruikshank in Presser thus:

"the chief justice, in delivering the judgment of the court, said that the right of the people to keep and bear arms 'is not a right granted by the constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. . . . "​

That seamless melding is interesting and important. Chief Justice Waite was part of the Presser unanimous decision. Had Wood's statement been a mischaracterization of C.J. Waite's (and the Cruikshank Court's) sentiments on the right of bearing arms in public for self defense by those Freemen being synonymous with the right of the people to keep and bear arms, C.J. Waite would have no doubt protested.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Incorrect. I lived in Contra Costa County at the time and went to Martinez to talk to the deputy in charge of the permit process. He wouldn't even give me an application to fill out.
I wasn't rich enough, or connected enough, to warrant one. There's a difference between what the legislation says, and how it is actually enforced.

Impossible to get one in NYC. Took me a year to get a home permit.


Of course, Democrat gun laws only target law-abiding citizens, and make us sitting ducks for Democrat constituents.

 

[PoliticalChic]

That is a lie and you know it. Democrats in New York and other democrat party controlled cities deny the Right because they state you have no “need” to carry and you were unable to prove a need….so you are wrong.

"When seconds count, the police are just minutes away."

 

[2aguy]

"When seconds count, the police are just minutes away."

If you are lucky…….

 

[Kilroy2]

Actually, Cruikshank says the opposite. The Supreme Court in Cruikshank recognizes the right to bear arms, for the purpose of self defense, in public, as being being possessed and exercised by those two former slaves, then citizens at the heart of the case. Have you ever read the case?



Do you think that statement supports your belief above that Cruikshank "held" that, "that American citizens had no inherent right to bear arms" and that "according to the highest court in the land, the Second Amendment only protected the states’ right to maintain a militia, not an individual’s right to possess firearms?

Is that what you get from the statement that the 2nd Amendment only applied "to the federal government, not state or local governments nor individual citizens"? Is that what your take is?



Well, if you believe Presser establishes that "state's were free to regulate and ban . . . guns in any way they chose", it's obvious you never read the case . . .

Actually, Presser says the exact opposite, Presser says states are absolutely forbidden to disarm their citizens because the citizens comprise a shared defensive resource that the federal government relies on. The Presser Court impresses a federal enforcement of the citizen's federal right to keep and bear arms without any reference to or reliance on, the 2nd Amendment.

The Court is enforcing an unavoidable principle that is an outcome of the Constitution's promise to the states to forever provide a republican form of government. The Court unequivocally states it is a foundational principle of the nation that the armed citizens are the reserve military force of both the nation and the states and even laying the 2nd Amendment out of view, the states can not disarm their citizens because the nation might need those citizens and their guns to defend the nation.



The only thing more fantastical than your claims about the RKBA and the 2nd Amendment would be you claiming to have seen Obama riding sidesaddle on a rainbow farting unicorn waving a double ended dildo . . .

.

Actually it said that the 2nd amendment applied to the federal government specifically for raising an army and does not infer any rights for gun ownership. It is left to the states to decide. States can regulate gun control but they could not ban guns outright. Thus the importance is that the 2nd amendment does not give citizens a blank check and the state can regulate gun control. This is different interpretation that those in 20th century ruling where the court in a 5 to 4 decision that the 2nd amendment guarantees the right to bear arms which overrides states legislative control for its residents.

The Supreme Court overruled the convictions of Cruikshank and other White League members, arguing that the First and Second Amendments apply only to the federal government, not state or local governments nor individual citizens. The Court wrote that the "Second Amendment has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government."

In legalese, the Supreme Court ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is an "unincorporated" right, and only Congress was barred from restricting the Second Amendment, not states or individuals. Although states could restrict citizens' gun rights, they couldn't outlaw guns altogether. Doing so would deprive the United States of its "well regulated militia."

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

FindLaw's searchable database of United States Supreme Court decisions since

caselaw.findlaw.com

The same person may be at the same time a citizen of the United States and a citizen of a State, but his rights of citizenship under one of these governments will be different from those he has under the other. Slaughter- House Cases, 16 Wall. 74.

The people of the United States resident within any State are subject to two governments: one State, and the other National;

The government of the United States is one of delegated powers alone. Its authority is defined and limited by the Constitution. All powers not granted to it by that instrument are reserved to the States or the people. No rights can be acquired under the constitution or laws of the United States, except such as the government of the United States has the authority to grant or secure. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left under the protection of the States.

The particular amendment now under consideration assumes the existence of the right of the people to assemble for lawful purposes, and protects it against encroachment by Congress. The right was not created by the amendment; neither was its continuance guaranteed, except as against congressional interference. For their protection in its enjoyment, therefore, the people must look to the States.

The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution

The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the 'powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police,' 'not surrendered or restrained' by the Constituton of the United States.

my question did you read it.

 

[westwall]

Actually it said that the 2nd amendment applied to the federal government specifically for raising an army and does not infer any rights for gun ownership. It is left to the states to decide. States can regulate gun control but they could not ban guns outright. Thus the importance is that the 2nd amendment does not give citizens a blank check and the state can regulate gun control. This is different interpretation that those in 20th century ruling where the court in a 5 to 4 decision that the 2nd amendment guarantees the right to bear arms which overrides states legislative control for its residents.

The Supreme Court overruled the convictions of Cruikshank and other White League members, arguing that the First and Second Amendments apply only to the federal government, not state or local governments nor individual citizens. The Court wrote that the "Second Amendment has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government."

In legalese, the Supreme Court ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is an "unincorporated" right, and only Congress was barred from restricting the Second Amendment, not states or individuals. Although states could restrict citizens' gun rights, they couldn't outlaw guns altogether. Doing so would deprive the United States of its "well regulated militia."

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

FindLaw's searchable database of United States Supreme Court decisions since

caselaw.findlaw.com

The same person may be at the same time a citizen of the United States and a citizen of a State, but his rights of citizenship under one of these governments will be different from those he has under the other. Slaughter- House Cases, 16 Wall. 74.

The people of the United States resident within any State are subject to two governments: one State, and the other National;

The government of the United States is one of delegated powers alone. Its authority is defined and limited by the Constitution. All powers not granted to it by that instrument are reserved to the States or the people. No rights can be acquired under the constitution or laws of the United States, except such as the government of the United States has the authority to grant or secure. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left under the protection of the States.

The particular amendment now under consideration assumes the existence of the right of the people to assemble for lawful purposes, and protects it against encroachment by Congress. The right was not created by the amendment; neither was its continuance guaranteed, except as against congressional interference. For their protection in its enjoyment, therefore, the people must look to the States.

The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution

The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the 'powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police,' 'not surrendered or restrained' by the Constituton of the United States.

my question did you read it.

The Bill of Rights deals SPECIFICALLY with INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. It takes a pretty dishonest person to claim that the 2nd is a GOVERNMENT right when it is government that already has all of the power.

 

[Kilroy2]

The Bill of Rights deals SPECIFICALLY with INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. It takes a pretty dishonest person to claim that the 2nd is a GOVERNMENT right when it is government that already has all of the power.

Supreme court ruling

The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the 'powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police,' 'not surrendered or restrained' by the Constitution of the United States.

ruling 100 years later of what the constitution means by those a lot closer understanding to what the people who wrote it meant.

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

FindLaw's searchable database of United States Supreme Court decisions since

caselaw.findlaw.com

nowadays the republicans look for the federal government to tell them what they can and cannot do.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I didn't claim the Court said, I said the Court "recognized".

The facts of Cruikshank and how the Court integrated those facts in its explanations of the RKBA and the 2nd Amendment, shows the Court recognizes that the right -allegedly- violated by Cruikshank, that of "bearing arms for lawful purpose" is synonymous with the rights recognized and secured by the 2nd Amendment.

The Court states that the right described in the indictment, that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose" is "not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is IT in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that IT shall not be infringed; . . . "

Now, does the 2nd Amendment in fact, expressly say that 'the right of bearing arms for lawful purpose, shall not be infringed?

NO.

The Court obviously recognizes that -- this amorphous, constitutionally undefined "right of bearing arms for lawful purpose", as exercised by Levi Nelson and Alexander Tillman, citizens of the United States, of African descent and persons of color, that in action was carrying guns for self defense, in public, is the, "IT" that the 2nd Amendment declares shall not be infringed, thus is legally interchangeable with "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".

In Presser the Court removed all doubt on this point.

In the Presser opinion, Justice Woods removed the Cruikshank case specific language (quoting the indictment of Cruikshank et al) and inserted the familiar words from the 2nd Amendment.

Woods characterized that bold rewording of Cruikshank in Presser thus:

"the chief justice, in delivering the judgment of the court, said that the right of the people to keep and bear arms 'is not a right granted by the constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. . . . "​

That seamless melding is interesting and important. Chief Justice Waite was part of the Presser unanimous decision. Had Wood's statement been a mischaracterization of C.J. Waite's (and the Cruikshank Court's) sentiments on the right of bearing arms in public for self defense by those Freemen being synonymous with the right of the people to keep and bear arms, C.J. Waite would have no doubt protested.

Sounds like trickery of some kind, to not say something, but to "recognize".....

If they didn't say something, then it's not there. It's quite simple. Just because some dude writing an article says that they must have recognized something because it's convenient for their argument.....

So, I guess we agree that neither Presser nor Cruikshank actually said any of this stuff then. Solves that problem easily.