When 2nd Amendment Saves Lives

[Abatis]

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

Understanding the operation of the pronoun "it" as representing an inanimate thing or concept previously mentioned and understood to be present in the immediate context, is not trickery.

Understanding the operation of synonyms is not trickery.

If they didn't say something, then it's not there. It's quite simple.

But the Court did say what I quoted.

Your only possible disagreement is that I am over-reading the term "bearing arms for lawful purpose" as being synonymous with the rights recognized and secured by the 2nd Amendment.

Your problem is the Court did say the right 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; . . . "

Your task, should you accept it, is demonstrating how "bearing arms for lawful purpose" is not the IT that is not granted by the Constitution, nor the IT that exists without any dependency on the Constitution, or the IT that the Second Amendment declares that shall not be infringed . . .

I don't see how you can honestly think my belief, that "bearing arms for lawful purpose" is synonymous with the rights recognized and secured by the 2nd Amendment, is trickery. Really you just sound like a partisan contrarian.

Just because some dude writing an article . . .

What dude? What article? Whenever I quote a source that is not of my own mind and hand I always use quotation marks.

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

Well, why your think your copy and paste proves anyhing is beyond me. Every word of what you quoted, opposes, rebuts or just destroys your arguments.

It's kinda funny really . . .

 

[Abatis]

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.

Well, that's just goofy. "It said" without room for the confusion you suffer from that since the right isn't granted by the Amendment, the right can't be argued to be conditioned by words that the right in no manner depends upon to exist. "It said" that the 2nd Amendment has only one effect, to restrict the powers of the federal government.

How can you say the Amendment is "interpreted" to facilitate raising an army, when it has only one effect, to restrict / bind government action?

The rest of the post gets no better, it is a jumble of BS.

You copy and paste but again, it doesn't seem that you have read it.

I was going to try to make some sense of your gibberish but it just isn't worth it.

 

[Kilroy2]

Well, that's just goofy. "It said" without room for the confusion you suffer from that since the right isn't granted by the Amendment, the right can't be argued to be conditioned by words that the right in no manner depends upon to exist. "It said" that the 2nd Amendment has only one effect, to restrict the powers of the federal government.

How can you say the Amendment is "interpreted" to facilitate raising an army, when it has only one effect, to restrict / bind government action?

The rest of the post gets no better, it is a jumble of BS.

You copy and paste but again, it doesn't seem that you have read it.

I was going to try to make some sense of your gibberish but it just isn't worth it.

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.

your interpretation
" the 2nd Amendment has only one effect, to restrict the powers of the federal government."

at the bottom level it can be interpreted in that way. (is the bowl half full or half empty) yet it doesn't restrict the powers of the federal government but says what it can do. In fact it says that they can provide for the security of a free state by regulating the militia. Where is the restriction you talk about?

(How can you say the Amendment is "interpreted" to facilitate raising an army, when it has only one effect, to restrict / bind government action? )

yet it says "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State",

how does that restrict or bind government action. when it is necessary. How do you defend a free state with a well regulated militia?

Trying to make sense of something does require the basic ability to understand something. Yet you seemed to be challenged in that area. My suggestion, continue reading comic books were as at least you can look at the pictures even if you can't read the words.

 

[westwall]

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.

your interpretation
" the 2nd Amendment has only one effect, to restrict the powers of the federal government."

at the bottom level it can be interpreted in that way. (is the bowl half full or half empty) yet it doesn't restrict the powers of the federal government but says what it can do. In fact it says that they can provide for the security of a free state by regulating the militia. Where is the restriction you talk about?

(How can you say the Amendment is "interpreted" to facilitate raising an army, when it has only one effect, to restrict / bind government action? )

yet it says "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State",

how does that restrict or bind government action. when it is necessary. How do you defend a free state with a well regulated militia?

Trying to make sense of something does require the basic ability to understand something. Yet you seemed to be challenged in that area. My suggestion, continue reading comic books were as at least you can look at the pictures even if you can't read the words.

The Bill of Rights is nine limitations on what government can do to the individual, and one final option.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Understanding the operation of the pronoun "it" as representing an inanimate thing or concept previously mentioned and understood to be present in the immediate context, is not trickery.

Understanding the operation of synonyms is not trickery.



But the Court did say what I quoted.

Your only possible disagreement is that I am over-reading the term "bearing arms for lawful purpose" as being synonymous with the rights recognized and secured by the 2nd Amendment.

Your problem is the Court did say the right 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; . . . "

Your task, should you accept it, is demonstrating how "bearing arms for lawful purpose" is not the IT that is not granted by the Constitution, nor the IT that exists without any dependency on the Constitution, or the IT that the Second Amendment declares that shall not be infringed . . .

I don't see how you can honestly think my belief, that "bearing arms for lawful purpose" is synonymous with the rights recognized and secured by the 2nd Amendment, is trickery. Really you just sound like a partisan contrarian.




What dude? What article? Whenever I quote a source that is not of my own mind and hand I always use quotation marks.



Well, why your think your copy and paste proves anyhing is beyond me. Every word of what you quoted, opposes, rebuts or just destroys your arguments.

It's kinda funny really . . .

"Bearing arms for lawful purposes" is easy to show what it means.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

"Bear arms" means "render military service" and "militia duty". It's quite clear from the founding fathers that this is the case.

"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. "

"They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

"Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

There's more where that came from too.

"bearing arms for lawful purposes" is double speak. It tells right wingers one thing, but attempts to stick to the Constitution by saying something completely different.

You read "carry arms around as you like as long as you're not murdering people" and those who know what this actually mean see "you can be in the militia".

What dude? The dude you quotes, Woods, by the looks of things.

"Well, why your think your copy and paste proves anyhing is beyond me. Every word of what you quoted, opposes, rebuts or just destroys your arguments."

You wrote this. I'm confused about what you mean. What "copy and paste"? I've gone back through the thread and I don't see any "copy and paste" of mine.

In the Presser case, the Supreme Court said that states can limit people from carrying guns.

"Unless restrained by their own constitutions, state legislatures may enact statutes to control and regulate all organizations, drilling, and parading of military bodies and associations except those which are authorized by the militia laws of the United States."

State legislatures can stop people drilling, parading unless they're in THE militia as stated in the US Constitution Article 1 Section 8.

"We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

Drilling or associating together as "military organizations" is not protected by the Second Amendment.

"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, and in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government. But, as already stated, we think it clear that the sections under consideration do not have this effect."

Essentially. The US govt cannot stop people from keeping and bearing arms. Walking around with a gun for your own business is NOT keeping and bearing arms.

In Cruikshank they merely stated the Second Amendment doesn't apply to the states. Beyond that it doesn't say much at all.

So I'm struggling to see how you're using these two cases to help your argument. Because quite frankly, they don't. Presser says that walking around with guns doesn't infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, and Cruikshank says the Second Amendment doesn't concern the states.

 

[Abatis]

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.

your interpretation
" the 2nd Amendment has only one effect, to restrict the powers of the federal government."

Not "my" interpretation, it's the interpretation of the Supreme Court.

at the bottom level it can be interpreted in that way. (is the bowl half full or half empty) yet it doesn't restrict the powers of the federal government but says what it can do. In fact it says that they can provide for the security of a free state by regulating the militia. Where is the restriction you talk about?

The 2nd Amendment is comprised of two clauses, a dependent, declaratory clause that is legally inactive / inert and an independent, restrictive clause that is operational.

(How can you say the Amendment is "interpreted" to facilitate raising an army, when it has only one effect, to restrict / bind government action? )

yet it says "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State",

how does that restrict or bind government action. when it is necessary. How do you defend a free state with a well regulated militia?

The declaratory clause doesn't do anything but speak to a (then) universally known, 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).

Trying to make sense of something does require the basic ability to understand something.

True. And part of that is understanding how this one thing fits into the larger entity. You are reading the 2nd Amendment in a vacuum, applying all manner of outside influences and effects that are driven by your leftist / communitarian / statist politics that is at its core, hostile to regular citizens possessing arms, especially militarily useful arms.

That baggage you put on it demands the 2nd Amendment be something it isn't and to violate the framework of rights theory the Constitution is founded upon. . . . To transform from a prohibition on government action to an empowering article, commanding government do what is actually forbidden.

That is why you are so confused.

.

 

[Abatis]

"Bearing arms for lawful purposes" is easy to show what it means.

Well, for that use in Cruikshank we know exactly what it means.

It meant Levi Nelson and Alexander Tillman, citizens of the United States, of African descent and persons of color, were armed in public for self defense against roving White mobs who were intent on overthrowing an election where Black candidates won offices. The White League disarmed, kidnapped and lynched Nelson and Tillman and terrorized and murdered at least 80 other Black citizens.

Here's how the liberal Constitution Accountability Center tells the story:

"The Colfax Massacre is the bloodiest single incident in the Reconstruction period, according to historian Eric Foner. On this day in 1873, about 300 white Louisianans armed with rifles and a cannon surrounded the courthouse in Colfax, Louisiana, attempting to seize power from African-American local officials and a group of freedmen and former Union soldiers who were defending the town government. Shots rang out, and after a skirmish, the black defenders, overmatched and outgunned, attempted to flee the courthouse. Many were shot as they tried to escape. Others were taken prisoner, and subsequently killed by their captors. Estimates vary widely, but it appears that at least 80 black Americans were killed that day—many in cold blood—by terrorists seeking to destroy the Reconstruction government in Louisiana. The perpetrators of this violence were prosecuted by the federal government but never convicted of a crime, which only served to embolden terrorist organizations like the Ku Klux Klan and other groups seeking to restore racial hierarchy to the South.​

​

The federal prosecution of the perpetrators of the Colfax Massacre went all the way to the Supreme Court, which resulted in one of the worst decisions in Supreme Court history, United States v. Cruikshank. In Cruikshank, the Supreme Court held that the 14th Amendment did not allow the federal government to prosecute individuals for violating the fundamental rights of others—including the First Amendment right to assemble and the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms—even in states that were ignoring racial violence and intimidation. Thanks to Cruikshank’s blatant misreading of the 14th Amendment – ratified eight years earlier and explicitly dedicated to providing federal protection for the privileges and immunities of all Americans – southern state governments systematically turned a blind eye towards the violence, intimidation, and disfranchisement of blacks throughout the South. . . . "​

​

Remembering the Colfax Massacre | Constitutional Accountability Center

By Xan White, Research & Special Projects Associate, Constitutional Accountability Center Virginia’s Governor Bob McDonnell recently declared April Confederate History Month without condemning—or even acknowledging—the institution of slavery, until an immediate national outcry led him to...

www.theusconstitution.org

Do you realize the side you are arguing for?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well, for that use in Cruikshank we know exactly what it means.

It meant Levi Nelson and Alexander Tillman, citizens of the United States, of African descent and persons of color, were armed in public for self defense against roving White mobs who were intent on overthrowing an election where Black candidates won offices. The White League disarmed, kidnapped and lynched Nelson and Tillman and terrorized and murdered at least 80 other Black citizens.

Here's how the liberal Constitution Accountability Center tells the story:

"The Colfax Massacre is the bloodiest single incident in the Reconstruction period, according to historian Eric Foner. On this day in 1873, about 300 white Louisianans armed with rifles and a cannon surrounded the courthouse in Colfax, Louisiana, attempting to seize power from African-American local officials and a group of freedmen and former Union soldiers who were defending the town government. Shots rang out, and after a skirmish, the black defenders, overmatched and outgunned, attempted to flee the courthouse. Many were shot as they tried to escape. Others were taken prisoner, and subsequently killed by their captors. Estimates vary widely, but it appears that at least 80 black Americans were killed that day—many in cold blood—by terrorists seeking to destroy the Reconstruction government in Louisiana. The perpetrators of this violence were prosecuted by the federal government but never convicted of a crime, which only served to embolden terrorist organizations like the Ku Klux Klan and other groups seeking to restore racial hierarchy to the South.​

​

The federal prosecution of the perpetrators of the Colfax Massacre went all the way to the Supreme Court, which resulted in one of the worst decisions in Supreme Court history, United States v. Cruikshank. In Cruikshank, the Supreme Court held that the 14th Amendment did not allow the federal government to prosecute individuals for violating the fundamental rights of others—including the First Amendment right to assemble and the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms—even in states that were ignoring racial violence and intimidation. Thanks to Cruikshank’s blatant misreading of the 14th Amendment – ratified eight years earlier and explicitly dedicated to providing federal protection for the privileges and immunities of all Americans – southern state governments systematically turned a blind eye towards the violence, intimidation, and disfranchisement of blacks throughout the South. . . . "​

​

Remembering the Colfax Massacre | Constitutional Accountability Center

By Xan White, Research & Special Projects Associate, Constitutional Accountability Center Virginia’s Governor Bob McDonnell recently declared April Confederate History Month without condemning—or even acknowledging—the institution of slavery, until an immediate national outcry led him to...

www.theusconstitution.org

Do you realize the side you are arguing for?

The Cruikshank case dealt with one thing. Whether the Second Amendment applied to the states or not.

That's it.

 

[Abatis]

"Bear arms" means "render military service" and "militia duty". It's quite clear from the founding fathers that this is the case.

"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. "

"They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

Do you realize this works against your position? It's right there, you quoted it.

The framers rejected this conscientious objector language for two reasons. First is the one you quote, because it could be used to empower government to make a blanket statement, declare all people religiously scrupulous and remove the right to arms of all, even those who were not claiming this dispensation.

The framers did not want any language in a provision securing a right that could be later misconstructed into a power to restrict the right, and that included including language that pertained to militia eligibility and organization. The 2nd Amendment does not speak in any manner to militia regulation, the authorization for establishing militia regulation and command is entirely contained in the body of the Constitution; Art I, §8, cl's. 15 & 16 (Congress) and Art II, §2, cl. 1 (President) and nowhere else.

The 2ndA has never been inspected to inform or held to direct, maintain or protect any militia interests (rights or powers) whatsoever. There have been many cases decided by SCOTUS that have been focused on disputes and conflicts and issues of militia operations -- and the 2nd Amendment was mentioned only once in 201 years, in a dissent, and only to say the 2nd Amendment offered no guidance.

You are conjuring an action and effect for the 2nd Amendment that has never existed and has never been seen where it would actually mean and do something (deciding militia issues and disputes).

Your theory was invented for one purpose, as an alternate collectivist theory to the individual right model of the 2nd Amendment, and that is the only place it is brought out and waved around . . . It's like a clove of garlic pulled from one's coat to repel a vampire; as soon as the monster is gone, you quickly put it away, lest its horrible stench offend.

What dude? The dude you quotes, Woods, by the looks of things.

Jesus H. Christ riding sidesaddle on a rainbow farting unicorn, its a Supreme Court opinion, not an "article" written by "some dude" . . .

I'm confused about what you mean. What "copy and paste"? I've gone back through the thread and I don't see any "copy and paste" of mine.

I mixed you up with kilroy, he posted big blocks from the cases. Sorry.

In the Presser case, the Supreme Court said that states can limit people from carrying guns.

Presser was only concerned with private citizens acing as paramilitary organizations and their claim that the 2nd Amendment protected that action. Presser said nothing about the general possession and carriage of arms as individuals for lawful personal reasons like self-defense.

"We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

Drilling or associating together as "military organizations" is not protected by the Second Amendment.

Correct. Because of Presser, I'm one of the few gun rights supporters who argue there is no right for private citizens to organize themselves as militia. Not that they can't do it, just that there is no immunity to be claimed from laws forbidding the practice, if a state chooses to enforce them.

Walking around with a gun for your own business is NOT keeping and bearing arms.

SCOTUS wasn't making any determinations in law as to the federally recognized and enforced "right to keep and bear arms" other than the right was not infringed by the Illinois state law barring armed musters / marches by private citizens.

You can't argue that Presser held, "walking around with a gun for your own business is NOT keeping and bearing arms." In 1886, the Court had no interest in the 2nd Amendment's interplay with state laws restricting citizen possession and carry of arms for personal purposes. It just wasn't any part of the Court's determinations. In many states, under the laws of the state made in pursuance to their state constitution and the right to arms in their state constitution, they certainly was a right to walk around with a gun for your own business.

In states like New York and Maryland and California and New Jersey, states that have no right to arms provision in ther state constitutions, their legislatures just did what they wanted and in some instances, banned guns and carrying them for personal purposes, even self defense.

.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Do you realize this works against your position? It's right there, you quoted it.

The framers rejected this conscientious objector language for two reasons. First is the one you quote, because it could be used to empower government to make a blanket statement, declare all people religiously scrupulous and remove the right to arms of all, even those who were not claiming this dispensation.

The framers did not want any language in a provision securing a right that could be later misconstructed into a power to restrict the right, and that included including language that pertained to militia eligibility and organization. The 2nd Amendment does not speak in any manner to militia regulation, the authorization for establishing militia regulation and command is entirely contained in the body of the Constitution; Art I, §8, cl's. 15 & 16 (Congress) and Art II, §2, cl. 1 (President) and nowhere else.

The 2ndA has never been inspected to inform or held to direct, maintain or protect any militia interests (rights or powers) whatsoever. There have been many cases decided by SCOTUS that have been focused on disputes and conflicts and issues of militia operations -- and the 2nd Amendment was mentioned only once in 201 years, in a dissent, and only to say the 2nd Amendment offered no guidance.

You are conjuring an action and effect for the 2nd Amendment that has never existed and has never been seen where it would actually mean and do something (deciding militia issues and disputes).

Your theory was invented for one purpose, as an alternate collectivist theory to the individual right model of the 2nd Amendment, and that is the only place it is brought out and waved around . . . It's like a clove of garlic pulled from one's coat to repel a vampire; as soon as the monster is gone, you quickly put it away, lest its horrible stench offend.


.

It doesn't go against my position. The issue here is that you haven't yet delved deeply enough into all of this to find that out yet.

So, we'll go a bit deeper.

What is the purpose of the Second Amendment? Well, the first half of the amendment makes this clear, and the Founding Fathers also made it clear. There's no mention of self defense or of hunting. They were concerned with protecting the Militia as stated in the Constitution (as opposed to random militias).

The question here is how do you protect the militia from the Federal government?

1) You prevent the federal government stopping people being in the militia. Pretty obvious, if a militia has no personnel, it's not a militia.

2) You protect the source of arms to the militia. No guns, no militia.

Right there you have 1) the right to bear arms and 2) the right to keep arms. Two different rights designed to protect the militia.

We know this to be the case. We can see this in Supreme Court decisions, we can see this in laws made, we can see this in debates by the Founding Fathers, we can see this in state RKBA clauses of the time. Everywhere.

For example, the Dick Act of 1902/1903. They made the "unorganized militia". Why? Why would you make a militia that is POINTLESS?

Well, it wasn't pointless. It was designed to get around the right to bear arms. If everyone had the right to be in the militia and you made the National Guard and people were like "I want to be in the militia, you have to let me in" then the National Guard wouldn't be so professional, would it?

So they made the professional militia and then they made an unprofessional militia so if you did turn around and say "I want to be in the militia", they could say "you're in the 'unorganized militia', deal with it."

If we take the Heller case. They said:

"(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

Okay, the important part here is that the 2A is unconnected with service in the militia. If you had to be in the militia to be in the militia, then it would be pointless, wouldn't it? They could prevent you from being in the militia easily. The same with the right to keep arms. If you had to be in the militia to keep arms, then they'd just stop everyone being in the militia and ban guns.

To protect the militia, you need to have that disconnection. So they can't call you up into the militia and take your arms, so they can't ban you being in the militia. You have that right to be in the militia, or be the source of militia weaponry no matter what.

"The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms."

It's individual. Yes, it has to be individual. How can a collective get a right?

"The Second Amendment's drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms."

Again, individual.

"None of the Court's precedents forecloses the Court's interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876), nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886), refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes."

Again, individual.

They only speak of it being individual rather than collective for the most part. Mostly because DC claimed it was collective. Nothing in Heller disputes what I've said.

"2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues."

So, there isn't an unlimited right to keep a weapon. They use the term "carry" here. Not "bear".

"(3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense."

They talk about self defense IN THE HOME. Not carrying weapons outside for self defense. People have a right to own a gun. Therefore in their own home they can do whatever they want with it, within the law. Congress cannot make a law that stops them using their gun INSIDE.

But get outside and the 2A does NOT protect them unless it involves buying and selling.

 

[2aguy]

Do you realize this works against your position? It's right there, you quoted it.

The framers rejected this conscientious objector language for two reasons. First is the one you quote, because it could be used to empower government to make a blanket statement, declare all people religiously scrupulous and remove the right to arms of all, even those who were not claiming this dispensation.

The framers did not want any language in a provision securing a right that could be later misconstructed into a power to restrict the right, and that included including language that pertained to militia eligibility and organization. The 2nd Amendment does not speak in any manner to militia regulation, the authorization for establishing militia regulation and command is entirely contained in the body of the Constitution; Art I, §8, cl's. 15 & 16 (Congress) and Art II, §2, cl. 1 (President) and nowhere else.

The 2ndA has never been inspected to inform or held to direct, maintain or protect any militia interests (rights or powers) whatsoever. There have been many cases decided by SCOTUS that have been focused on disputes and conflicts and issues of militia operations -- and the 2nd Amendment was mentioned only once in 201 years, in a dissent, and only to say the 2nd Amendment offered no guidance.

You are conjuring an action and effect for the 2nd Amendment that has never existed and has never been seen where it would actually mean and do something (deciding militia issues and disputes).

Your theory was invented for one purpose, as an alternate collectivist theory to the individual right model of the 2nd Amendment, and that is the only place it is brought out and waved around . . . It's like a clove of garlic pulled from one's coat to repel a vampire; as soon as the monster is gone, you quickly put it away, lest its horrible stench offend.



Jesus H. Christ riding sidesaddle on a rainbow farting unicorn, its a Supreme Court opinion, not an "article" written by "some dude" . . .



I mixed you up with kilroy, he posted big blocks from the cases. Sorry.




Presser was only concerned with private citizens acing as paramilitary organizations and their claim that the 2nd Amendment protected that action. Presser said nothing about the general possession and carriage of arms as individuals for lawful personal reasons like self-defense.



Correct. Because of Presser, I'm one of the few gun rights supporters who argue there is no right for private citizens to organize themselves as militia. Not that they can't do it, just that there is no immunity to be claimed from laws forbidding the practice, if a state chooses to enforce them.



SCOTUS wasn't making any determinations in law as to the federally recognized and enforced "right to keep and bear arms" other than the right was not infringed by the Illinois state law barring armed musters / marches by private citizens.

You can't argue that Presser held, "walking around with a gun for your own business is NOT keeping and bearing arms." In 1886, the Court had no interest in the 2nd Amendment's interplay with state laws restricting citizen possession and carry of arms for personal purposes. It just wasn't any part of the Court's determinations. In many states, under the laws of the state made in pursuance to their state constitution and the right to arms in their state constitution, they certainly was a right to walk around with a gun for your own business.

In states like New York and Maryland and California and New Jersey, states that have no right to arms provision in ther state constitutions, their legislatures just did what they wanted and in some instances, banned guns and carrying them for personal purposes, even self defense.

.

Do you think they hurt their brains as they go through the mental gymnastics to come up with their silly anti- second amendment arguments?

 

[2aguy]

Not "my" interpretation, it's the interpretation of the Supreme Court.



The 2nd Amendment is comprised of two clauses, a dependent, declaratory clause that is legally inactive / inert and an independent, restrictive clause that is operational.



The declaratory clause doesn't do anything but speak to a (then) universally known, 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).



True. And part of that is understanding how this one thing fits into the larger entity. You are reading the 2nd Amendment in a vacuum, applying all manner of outside influences and effects that are driven by your leftist / communitarian / statist politics that is at its core, hostile to regular citizens possessing arms, especially militarily useful arms.

That baggage you put on it demands the 2nd Amendment be something it isn't and to violate the framework of rights theory the Constitution is founded upon. . . . To transform from a prohibition on government action to an empowering article, commanding government do what is actually forbidden.

That is why you are so confused.

.

Kilroy and frigid remind me of the gymnastics Justice Breyer used in his dissent in the Lopez case……trying to ban guns within 100 yards of a school…….he tried to say the interstate commerce clause allowed the ban….how? If guns were allowed within 100 yards of a school, kids would be afraid, if they were afraid at school they wouldn’t learn well……so then, they wouldn’t be able to get good jobs, and therefore it would effect interstate commerce…..

That level of insanity is what we are fighting against…..

 

[westwall]

Do you think they hurt their brains as they go through the mental gymnastics to come up with their silly anti- second amendment arguments?

You are assuming they have brains.

I see little evidence to support that claim.

 

[2aguy]

It doesn't go against my position. The issue here is that you haven't yet delved deeply enough into all of this to find that out yet.

So, we'll go a bit deeper.

What is the purpose of the Second Amendment? Well, the first half of the amendment makes this clear, and the Founding Fathers also made it clear. There's no mention of self defense or of hunting. They were concerned with protecting the Militia as stated in the Constitution (as opposed to random militias).

The question here is how do you protect the militia from the Federal government?

1) You prevent the federal government stopping people being in the militia. Pretty obvious, if a militia has no personnel, it's not a militia.

2) You protect the source of arms to the militia. No guns, no militia.

Right there you have 1) the right to bear arms and 2) the right to keep arms. Two different rights designed to protect the militia.

We know this to be the case. We can see this in Supreme Court decisions, we can see this in laws made, we can see this in debates by the Founding Fathers, we can see this in state RKBA clauses of the time. Everywhere.

For example, the Dick Act of 1902/1903. They made the "unorganized militia". Why? Why would you make a militia that is POINTLESS?

Well, it wasn't pointless. It was designed to get around the right to bear arms. If everyone had the right to be in the militia and you made the National Guard and people were like "I want to be in the militia, you have to let me in" then the National Guard wouldn't be so professional, would it?

So they made the professional militia and then they made an unprofessional militia so if you did turn around and say "I want to be in the militia", they could say "you're in the 'unorganized militia', deal with it."

If we take the Heller case. They said:

"(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

Okay, the important part here is that the 2A is unconnected with service in the militia. If you had to be in the militia to be in the militia, then it would be pointless, wouldn't it? They could prevent you from being in the militia easily. The same with the right to keep arms. If you had to be in the militia to keep arms, then they'd just stop everyone being in the militia and ban guns.

To protect the militia, you need to have that disconnection. So they can't call you up into the militia and take your arms, so they can't ban you being in the militia. You have that right to be in the militia, or be the source of militia weaponry no matter what.

"The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms."

It's individual. Yes, it has to be individual. How can a collective get a right?

"The Second Amendment's drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms."

Again, individual.

"None of the Court's precedents forecloses the Court's interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876), nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886), refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes."

Again, individual.

They only speak of it being individual rather than collective for the most part. Mostly because DC claimed it was collective. Nothing in Heller disputes what I've said.

"2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues."

So, there isn't an unlimited right to keep a weapon. They use the term "carry" here. Not "bear".

"(3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense."

They talk about self defense IN THE HOME. Not carrying weapons outside for self defense. People have a right to own a gun. Therefore in their own home they can do whatever they want with it, within the law. Congress cannot make a law that stops them using their gun INSIDE.

But get outside and the 2A does NOT protect them unless it involves buying and selling.

The almighty Ginsburg herself stated that “Bear” meant to wear or carry on the person or in a coat……..any sane human being understands this……..and she was hardly sane….

 

[Abatis]

It doesn't go against my position. The issue here is that you haven't yet delved deeply enough into all of this to find that out yet.

So, we'll go a bit deeper.

I tailor my arguments to the person I am debating. The deeper end of the pool is not a place that I get to swim in that often, not because I can't swim there, but because most anti-gunners can't keep from drowning in knee-deep water.

I thank you for this post, I enjoyed reading it; I like when quotes from original sources are presented and then directed, "this is what I think this means and why I think my position is supported by it" analysis is given. It is what I try to do, what I like to see.

It's not like anything we say here is really determinative, all we are doing is presenting our most persuasive interpretation and opinion about words, facts and especially statements by SCOTUS and other sources that we both are working from. This debate is about those interpretations. Thank you again and I appreciate the time you spent writing it.

In my reply I'm going to break down your post and post multiple replies and I might combine similar points you made and address them together in one post, just to keep those ideas together. I hope I don't come across as altering or misrepresenting them or your position, if you think I do, please make a note of it.

What is the purpose of the Second Amendment? Well, the first half of the amendment makes this clear, and the Founding Fathers also made it clear. There's no mention of self defense or of hunting. They were concerned with protecting the Militia as stated in the Constitution (as opposed to random militias).

Correct. The 2nd Amendment has a purpose, a singular intent, and that was to perpetuate the general militia principle. US v Miller speaks to this directly, telling us the "obvious purpose" of the "declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment" was "to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness" of militia forces. The 2nd Amendment did that by rendering immune from federal government infringement, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, the means by which the people can fulfill their duty if called.

You are correct too that there is no mention of particular recreational or personal uses of arms in the 2ndA. That's because there was never any question that the right to possess and use arms to hunt and defend oneself, along with a myriad of other lawful uses, was considered a birthright of every citizen. That right was possessed by the citizen without any recognition or permission from government. The right wasn't given or granted and was not a product of the benevolence of the magistrate.

As an aside, there's no nota bene for types or topics of speech or writing that are protected under the 1st Amendment. There is no a mention of adventure novels or texts on the sciences but nobody would argue the 1st Amendment doesn't protect the right to converse or write or publish upon those topics.

The aspects of those activities that people demanded be secure and protected from government in the 1st and 2nd Amendment, were the political aspects. By protecting the means and actions that could question or even oppose the political power structure meant that political structure was powerless to injure the right to read romance novels or hunt or justifiably defend yourself.

Holding government impotent to impact undefined speech, press and arms, of course automatically protects ancillary, unrelated and nonpolitical means and actions; a federal government held powerless can't claim a power to restrict citizens in any of those affairs.

.

 

[Abatis]

The question here is how do you protect the militia from the Federal government?

1) You prevent the federal government stopping people being in the militia. Pretty obvious, if a militia has no personnel, it's not a militia.

But there were restrictions on who could serve, it wasn't universally open for all, and there certainly wasn't a "right to serve in the militia". First, only the "free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years" could enroll.

Then there were the elected officials, judges, custom house officers, post officers and stage-drivers employed delivery of mail, Ferrymen employed at any ferry on the post road; inspectors of exports; pilots and mariners employed in the sea service and all persons who are exempted by the laws of the respective states, who were all exempted from militia duty.

the Dick Act of 1902/1903. They made the "unorganized militia". Why? Why would you make a militia that is POINTLESS?

Well, it wasn't pointless. It was designed to get around the right to bear arms. If everyone had the right to be in the militia and you made the National Guard and people were like "I want to be in the militia, you have to let me in" then the National Guard wouldn't be so professional, would it?

So they made the professional militia and then they made an unprofessional militia so if you did turn around and say "I want to be in the militia", they could say "you're in the 'unorganized militia', deal with it."

The "unorganized militia" wasn't created in 1903; it existed before the Constitution. If your read Federalist 29 (which was explaining what the powers would be over the organized militia if the Constitution was ratified) and it speaks of 'the militia' as an entity already in existence.

In Presser the Court states unequivocally:

"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,. . . "​

It is those citizens merely capable of bearing arms that constitute the reserve / unorganized militia and it is those citizens that possess the right to keep and bear arms simply because they might be called upon to defend the nation or their state.

.

 

[Abatis]

If we take the Heller case. They said:

"(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

Okay, the important part here is that the 2A is unconnected with service in the militia.

That quote from the syllabus is relating the part of the decision that abrogates U.S. v. Tot, 131 F.2d 261 (3rd Cir. 1942) and Cases v. U.S., 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942), two incestuous sister cases that dismissed and ignored SCOTUS in Miller and created the "state's right" (Tot) and "militia right" (Cases) interpretations in the federal courts. Invalidating those Circuit decisions also made infirm the dozens of lower and state court decisions citing those 1942 "collective right" holdings that upheld /sustained hundreds of gun laws.

For 66 years in the lower federal and state courts, the 2nd Amendment was not an individual right, it was a right to states to organize their militias without federal interference and/or a right of some people, to keep and bear arms only when active in the organized militia.

66 fucking years . . .

That's why Heller reads like it does.

If you had to be in the militia to be in the militia, then it would be pointless, wouldn't it? They could prevent you from being in the militia easily. The same with the right to keep arms. If you had to be in the militia to keep arms, then they'd just stop everyone being in the militia and ban guns.

To protect the militia, you need to have that disconnection. So they can't call you up into the militia and take your arms, so they can't ban you being in the militia. You have that right to be in the militia, or be the source of militia weaponry no matter what.

That construction, that interpretation of the 2nd Amendment has been noted before and was argued more effectively than I could do. Here is Thomas Cooley, a 19th Century constitutional commentator cited approvingly by SCOTUS on many issues including the 2nd Amendment in Miller. He said about the 2ndA in his treatise, The General Principles of Constitutional Law in the United States of America, 282-83 (Boston, Little, Brown 2d ed. 1891):

"The Right is General. -- It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon. But the law may make provision for the enrolment of all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and if the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well-regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than the mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in doing so the laws of public order."​

​

.

 

[Abatis]

"The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms."

It's individual. Yes, it has to be individual. How can a collective get a right?

Yes, but again, the "collective right" interpretation was what the lower court case law directed for 66 years (1942-2008).

"2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues."

So, there isn't an unlimited right to keep a weapon.

No party or amicus in Heller was arguing for an unlimited, absolute right to keep and bear any weapon any where; I don't think it remarkable the Court did not hold such a right exists.

They use the term "carry" here. Not "bear".

The terms "bear" and "carry" are synonymous. They have to be, that is an unavoidable determination because whatever military / militia activity connotation "bear arms" might be construed to mean, that connotation can't be applied as a condtioning or restraint on the right secured by the 2nd Amendment . . . Because "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia."

Sure it's a circular argument when you look at it this narrow, but it is the legal reality.

.

 

[Abatis]

They talk about self defense IN THE HOME. Not carrying weapons outside for self defense. People have a right to own a gun. Therefore in their own home they can do whatever they want with it, within the law. Congress cannot make a law that stops them using their gun INSIDE.

But get outside and the 2A does NOT protect them unless it involves buying and selling.

This argument is a shiny trinket that only catches the attention of anti-gunners on message boards.

Heller's "in the home" wasn't establishing or even acknowledging a limitation of the RKBA ending at one's door frame; it was acknowledging the focus of the DC law's specific words and action that was being challenged, (and invalidated). SCOTUS was respecting its duty to keep its decisions narrow, to just the issues and arguments before them . . . Heller says:

"We turn finally to the law at issue here. As we have said, the law totally bans handgun possession in the home. It also requires that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock at all times, rendering it inoperable. . . .​

​

In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment , as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home."​

To read that specific, direct response to the challenged DC's law's particular wording and action, as a Court "established" restraint on the RKBA across the nation, is the most ridiculous exercise in anti-gunner over-reading. The Court isn't endorsing the idea, the Court is rejecting it and declaring it a violation of the 2nd Amendment . . .

We can agree that it is obvious the DC statutes that set the restrictions and "good cause" qualifications for citizens to carry a gun outside the home were not being challenged or reviewed by Heller.

DC's "good cause" qualifications for citizens to carry a gun outside the home have been challenged in recent years and it is interesting that the DC lawyers did not argue that the Supreme Court said the 2nd Amendment only protects gun possession and use "in the home".

In 2017 the DC Circuit applying Heller invalidated DC's restrictive "good cause" requirements and ordered DC to issue to any person not disqualified to keep and bear arms, a license to carry a gun for self defense outside the home, WRENN v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 864 F.3d 650 (2017). Did the DC Circuit ignore / disobey SCOTUS?

No . . .

Even in the NY case before SCOTUS now, the New York lawyers, on page 9 in their reply brief filed on Feb. 22nd, in discussing four federal Circuit decisions UPHOLDING various "good cause" requirements for carry licenses, concede that those courts all say the 2nd Amendment protects a right to carry a gun outside the home.

"All of these courts proceeded on the understanding that the Second Amendment right applies outside the home. The First Circuit explained that while this Court’s decisions in Heller and McDonald invalidated laws that prohibited the possession of firearms in the home, the Court’s reasoning “impl[ied] that the right to carry a firearm for self-defense guaranteed by the Second Amendment is not limited to the home.”​

​

Brief of respondents Keith M. Corlett, et al. in opposition​

http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-843/169604/20210222170827872_20-843_Brief%20in%20Opposition.pdf

​

This imagined Heller established "in the home" restriction has never been recognized let alone enforced.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I tailor my arguments to the person I am debating. The deeper end of the pool is not a place that I get to swim in that often, not because I can't swim there, but because most anti-gunners can't keep from drowning in knee-deep water.

I thank you for this post, I enjoyed reading it; I like when quotes from original sources are presented and then directed, "this is what I think this means and why I think my position is supported by it" analysis is given. It is what I try to do, what I like to see.

It's not like anything we say here is really determinative, all we are doing is presenting our most persuasive interpretation and opinion about words, facts and especially statements by SCOTUS and other sources that we both are working from. This debate is about those interpretations. Thank you again and I appreciate the time you spent writing it.

In my reply I'm going to break down your post and post multiple replies and I might combine similar points you made and address them together in one post, just to keep those ideas together. I hope I don't come across as altering or misrepresenting them or your position, if you think I do, please make a note of it.



Correct. The 2nd Amendment has a purpose, a singular intent, and that was to perpetuate the general militia principle. US v Miller speaks to this directly, telling us the "obvious purpose" of the "declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment" was "to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness" of militia forces. The 2nd Amendment did that by rendering immune from federal government infringement, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, the means by which the people can fulfill their duty if called.

You are correct too that there is no mention of particular recreational or personal uses of arms in the 2ndA. That's because there was never any question that the right to possess and use arms to hunt and defend oneself, along with a myriad of other lawful uses, was considered a birthright of every citizen. That right was possessed by the citizen without any recognition or permission from government. The right wasn't given or granted and was not a product of the benevolence of the magistrate.

As an aside, there's no nota bene for types or topics of speech or writing that are protected under the 1st Amendment. There is no a mention of adventure novels or texts on the sciences but nobody would argue the 1st Amendment doesn't protect the right to converse or write or publish upon those topics.

The aspects of those activities that people demanded be secure and protected from government in the 1st and 2nd Amendment, were the political aspects. By protecting the means and actions that could question or even oppose the political power structure meant that political structure was powerless to injure the right to read romance novels or hunt or justifiably defend yourself.

Holding government impotent to impact undefined speech, press and arms, of course automatically protects ancillary, unrelated and nonpolitical means and actions; a federal government held powerless can't claim a power to restrict citizens in any of those affairs.

.

Well, I'm glad you're taking that approach to it. Too many people struggle to discuss politics in a sensible manner. So hopefully we can continue and enjoy using our brains. Really that's why I come on here, is to use my brain. I know I'm not going to convince 99% of people, because they don't want that, and I'm okay with it. As long as I get what I want out of this.

I don't think hunting or self defense were not included in the 2A because they were obvious. They weren't included because they didn't serve a political purpose.

Free speech is protected to make politics more open, unlike England at the time.
Religion was protected, because governments used religion as a tool.
Protecting the militia was important because A) the US couldn't afford a standing army and B) they worried the government would do what the English would do and keep people down with a standing army.
And on and on. They were all political.

Any right, or no right, of hunting wasn't needed in the Constitution. At the time I suppose they would never imagine people banning hunting. Self defense is probably included in the Constitution elsewhere, rather than the Second Amendment.

Self defense in itself is not a government issue. This is between two people. Unless you're defending yourself against government employees, in which case you most definitely aren't protected. If a police officer, or member of the armed forces tells you to do something in an official capacity, then you do it or get arrested if you resist.

With the First Amendment, everything is protected, with those exceptions like Libel, Treason etc etc, because if you limit the right beyond things that harm others or the country, then where does it stop? We see the debates in Congress over the "religious scruples" argument and we see that they worried one little crack would turn into a massive hole.

With guns, this would mean that it doesn't just apply to 18th century weaponry. However there's plenty of weaponry that can be limited. Like nukes. SAMs etc.