Question of gun rights........

[Moonbeam]

I don't know how the notion of guns ownership being the right of members of a well armed militia how that has been extended to personal gun ownership who can legally buy one but are not members of any such militia.

I am not trying to suggest that guns should be illegal except is such a condition, but rather how the law has been interpreted by the courts to seemingly avoid that reference in the Constitution.

It seems clear from the facts on the ground that membership in such an organization is not thought to be a legal issue. I don't know the history of court decisions that created our current reality and am asking for that information.

 

[LegendKiller]

I don't know how the notion of guns ownership being the right of members of a well armed militia how that has been extended to personal gun ownership who can legally buy one but are not members of any such militia.

I am not trying to suggest that guns should be illegal except is such a condition, but rather how the law has been interpreted by the courts to seemingly avoid that reference in the Constitution.

It seems clear from the facts on the ground that membership in such an organization is not thought to be a legal issue. I don't know the history of court decisions that created our current reality and am asking for that information.

The case law has been around for quite some time. It has been roundly established that the Militia is every single person in the country. You can look up US v Miller and US v Cruikshank, as well as Madison's (ratification discussion in VA) and other writings.

Black's Law Dictionary also has the definitions of "arms" which is broadly considered something commonly in use at the time.

 

[Moonbeam]

The case law has been around for quite some time. It has been roundly established that the Militia is every single person in the country. You can look up US v Miller and US v Cruikshank, as well as Madison's (ratification discussion in VA) and other writings.

Black's Law Dictionary also has the definitions of "arms" which is broadly considered something commonly in use at the time.

Fascinating! I find it difficult personally to imagine the definition of a militia as every single person in the US. Can you tell me if by that every citizen is a member of one giant militia or if each person is a militia unto himself such that the militia of me isn't the same militia of you? I am curious also, since the notion of well regulated out to imply, to my mind at least, some measure of control, how the total population would be considered well regulated?

 

[LegendKiller]

Fascinating! I find it difficult personally to imagine the definition of a militia as every single person in the US. Can you tell me if by that every citizen is a member of one giant militia or if each person is a militia unto himself such that the militia of me isn't the same militia of you? I am curious also, since the notion of well regulated out to imply, to my mind at least, some measure of control, how the total population would be considered well regulated?

You need to understand the historical usage of "regulated". Before the government regulated everything.

 

[Darwin333]

I don't know how the notion of guns ownership being the right of members of a well armed militia how that has been extended to personal gun ownership who can legally buy one but are not members of any such militia.

I am not trying to suggest that guns should be illegal except is such a condition, but rather how the law has been interpreted by the courts to seemingly avoid that reference in the Constitution.

It seems clear from the facts on the ground that membership in such an organization is not thought to be a legal issue. I don't know the history of court decisions that created our current reality and am asking for that information.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4zE0K22zH8

Explains it quite well...

 

[buckshot24]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51clP7JRqv8

 

[LegendKiller]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4zE0K22zH8

Explains it quite well...

lol, bit.

 

[mysticjbyrd]

I don't know how the notion of guns ownership being the right of members of a well armed militia how that has been extended to personal gun ownership who can legally buy one but are not members of any such militia.

I am not trying to suggest that guns should be illegal except is such a condition, but rather how the law has been interpreted by the courts to seemingly avoid that reference in the Constitution.

It seems clear from the facts on the ground that membership in such an organization is not thought to be a legal issue. I don't know the history of court decisions that created our current reality and am asking for that information.

Personally, I think it's rather stupid to try to decipher the literal meaning of what the founders wrote. It's ridiculous. It's in dire need of a page one rewrite.

 

[shady28]

Fascinating! I find it difficult personally to imagine the definition of a militia as every single person in the US. Can you tell me if by that every citizen is a member of one giant militia or if each person is a militia unto himself such that the militia of me isn't the same militia of you? I am curious also, since the notion of well regulated out to imply, to my mind at least, some measure of control, how the total population would be considered well regulated?

Take it in historical context.

For starters, the 2nd Amendment is recognized as coming from the English Bill of Rights of 1689. That Bill prevented a King from disarming the civilian population (the Parliament could). That had its roots in a prior King that disarmed certain segments of the population (Protestants).


With that context, this may help -

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788


"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People."
— Tench Coxe, 1788.

 

[LegendKiller]

Personally, I think it's rather stupid to try to decipher the literal meaning of what the founders wrote. It's ridiculous. It's in dire need of a page one rewrite.

There is no deciphering needed. The sentence structure, literature of the time, legal definitions, and scholarly writing makes not only letter of the law, intent, and Constitutional intent plainly evident and literal. Foremost is that the Constitution only limits Congress, not the people. All rights of the people are naturally given - this is why Jefferson didn't even want a BoR to begin with, he felt strongly that if they began to clarify what rights were natural, that it would then open the door to say that only those enumerated were granted, so either they would have to clarify all rights, or just take the strict stance that all were automatically granted. This is known and very clear. Several USSC rulings have upheld the 2nd, in addition to clarifying that the weapons intended are those in common use at the time, contrary to current writings which says the NRA "redefined" it. The rulings go back to the 1800s, far before the NRA, and make it clear that the PEOPLE have the rights, as granted by the Constitution.

Only liberals want or need to reinterpret it.

 

[Moonbeam]

There is no deciphering needed. The sentence structure, literature of the time, legal definitions, and scholarly writing makes not only letter of the law, intent, and Constitutional intent plainly evident and literal. Foremost is that the Constitution only limits Congress, not the people. All rights of the people are naturally given - this is why Jefferson didn't even want a BoR to begin with, he felt strongly that if they began to clarify what rights were natural, that it would then open the door to say that only those enumerated were granted, so either they would have to clarify all rights, or just take the strict stance that all were automatically granted. This is known and very clear. Several USSC rulings have upheld the 2nd, in addition to clarifying that the weapons intended are those in common use at the time, contrary to current writings which says the NRA "redefined" it. The rulings go back to the 1800s, far before the NRA, and make it clear that the PEOPLE have the rights, as granted by the Constitution.

Only liberals want or need to reinterpret it.

Having looked over the arguments presented, it seems to me you are correct that it it's either the fact that the government can assemble a well regulated militia that requires the people to be able to balance with their own arms, or that the militia is all the people, in the purpose of the amendment is that the right to bear arms is a right the government can't abridge.

Looks like an amendment would be required to change that.

I wonder, however, if in interpreting the constitution according to original meaning, gun ownership might be limited to antiques or weapons of similar capacity. Why couldn't laws be passed, for example, to outlaw cartridge weapons?

 

[LegendKiller]

Having looked over the arguments presented, it seems to me you are correct that it it's either the fact that the government can assemble a well regulated militia that requires the people to be able to balance with their own arms, or that the militia is all the people, in the purpose of the amendment is that the right to bear arms is a right the government can't abridge.

Looks like an amendment would be required to change that.

I wonder, however, if in interpreting the constitution according to original meaning, gun ownership might be limited to antiques or weapons of similar capacity. Why couldn't laws be passed, for example, to outlaw cartridge weapons?

US v Miller already settled that with "Common use" at the time. It was settled in 1939.

After just having fought a world power, the clear intent of the Constitution is for the People to have the same weapons available to them in common use. There is no "original meaning" to limit them to 1773 weapons, that is preposterous on the face of it.

To highlight Madison, the author of the 2nd Amendment...

"Madison, the eventual author of the Second Amendment, wrote in Federalist 46 of the “last successful resistance of this country against the British arms.” Here the term “arms” refers generally to the British invasion and all its weaponry, including cavalry, artillery, and naval power. Expanding on Hamilton’s theme of deterrence, Madison then argued for the establishment of a militia of “half a million of citizens with arms in their hands”37 as a deterrent against the standing army of any tyrannical federal government that might arise. Although read in a wooden and literal sense he meant man-portable small arms, his other writings and those of his contemporaries show that these men did not always think of arms in such a narrow way."

http://brainshavings.com/the-right-to-keep-and-bear-what/

That site has a very thorough breakdown, including case law, showing that "arms" was a very broad concept that was contemporary with currently utilized weapons, especially on the context of nation-states (including our own) that may threaten the people with tyranny. To think that the people who overthrew a tyrannical monarchy would limit their own citizens in the future to weapons vastly inferior to contemporary arms is silly.

You are stretching to fit everything within your own tyrannical viewpoint, exactly the reason why those rights are broadly granted and limited in narrowed definition. The FF knew some douchenozzle would attempt to abridge the rights of people in the future, just as the King did to try to disarm certain segments of his population in order to control them.

 

[buckshot24]

Personally, I think it's rather stupid to try to decipher the literal meaning of what the founders wrote. It's ridiculous. It's in dire need of a page one rewrite.

How would one rewrite something without deciphering it?

 

[mysticjbyrd]

There is no deciphering needed. The sentence structure, literature of the time, legal definitions, and scholarly writing makes not only letter of the law, intent, and Constitutional intent plainly evident and literal. Foremost is that the Constitution only limits Congress, not the people. All rights of the people are naturally given - this is why Jefferson didn't even want a BoR to begin with, he felt strongly that if they began to clarify what rights were natural, that it would then open the door to say that only those enumerated were granted, so either they would have to clarify all rights, or just take the strict stance that all were automatically granted. This is known and very clear. Several USSC rulings have upheld the 2nd, in addition to clarifying that the weapons intended are those in common use at the time, contrary to current writings which says the NRA "redefined" it. The rulings go back to the 1800s, far before the NRA, and make it clear that the PEOPLE have the rights, as granted by the Constitution.

Only liberals want or need to reinterpret it.

I agree with your interpretation. You practically required a gun to even survive from most of this countries history. Hell, you still do in some rural places.

I am not for banning guns, I don't think most people are either, but imo we still need to modernize the constitution.

Then again, I don't trust this corrupt government to do it properly, so maybe we are better off with what we have, even if it is flawed.

How would one rewrite something without deciphering it?

I am referring to the people that try to reinterpret the constitution in a way contrary to the way we have understood it. It's semantics with a political agenda.

For instance, trying to use the wording of the second amendment to ban guns, or declaring corporations to have all the rights of people, without any of responsibilities.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

What would you have "modernized"? Are there things you can think of where a really good law was shot down as unconstitutional?

 

[bradly1101]

Back when the constitution was written, militias were essentially the state police (please, look it up). Civilian gun ownership was romanticized in the movies, but was it ever logical?

 

[mysticjbyrd]

Back when the constitution was written, militias were essentially the state police (please, look it up). Civilian gun ownership was romanticized in the movies, but was it ever logical?

What?! Are you seriously arguing that settlers didn't need a gun?

What would you have "modernized"? Are there things you can think of where a really good law was shot down as unconstitutional?

Name the Amendment, and people have, or are currently trying to twist the meaning.

Free speech
Money is speech

Right to Bear Arms
Ban guns

Persons and houses to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures.
NSA CISA Stop and Frisk No knock Raids etc.. This amendment is practically completely ignored at this point.

Trials for crimes; just compensation for private property taken for public use.
Guantánamo bay, any who knows how many other facilities like it.

Civil rights in trials for crimes enumerated.
Trials aren't fair, if you have money you can basically get off. See the influenza kid.

Excessive bail, fines, and punishments prohibited.
Some people are practically put in debtors prison from fines.

Citizenship defined; privileges of citizens.
Corporations are people

etc..


Some of the problem lies in the amendments, some of it is people's twisted interpretation, and some of it is the fact that they aren't enforced.

 

[cubby1223]

..

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Name the Amendment, and people have, or are currently trying to twist the meaning.

Free speech
Money is speech

Right to Bear Arms
Ban guns

Persons and houses to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures.
NSA CISA Stop and Frisk No knock Raids etc.. This amendment is practically completely ignored at this point.

Trials for crimes; just compensation for private property taken for public use.
Guantánamo bay, any who knows how many other facilities like it.

Civil rights in trials for crimes enumerated.
Trials aren't fair, if you have money you can basically get off. See the influenza kid.

Excessive bail, fines, and punishments prohibited.
Some people are practically put in debtors prison from fines.

etc..


Some of the problem lies in the amendments, some of it is people's twisted interpretation, and some of it is the fact that they aren't enforced.

Some of this is more an issue of people ignoring/distorting the constitution as you've basically stated (e.g. 4th Amendment stuff) so I don't think rewriting anything will cause politicians to suddenly start caring again, but yeah I agree with your overall point.

 

[Moonbeam]

US v Miller already settled that with "Common use" at the time. It was settled in 1939.

After just having fought a world power, the clear intent of the Constitution is for the People to have the same weapons available to them in common use. There is no "original meaning" to limit them to 1773 weapons, that is preposterous on the face of it.

To highlight Madison, the author of the 2nd Amendment...

"Madison, the eventual author of the Second Amendment, wrote in Federalist 46 of the “last successful resistance of this country against the British arms.” Here the term “arms” refers generally to the British invasion and all its weaponry, including cavalry, artillery, and naval power. Expanding on Hamilton’s theme of deterrence, Madison then argued for the establishment of a militia of “half a million of citizens with arms in their hands”37 as a deterrent against the standing army of any tyrannical federal government that might arise. Although read in a wooden and literal sense he meant man-portable small arms, his other writings and those of his contemporaries show that these men did not always think of arms in such a narrow way."

http://brainshavings.com/the-right-to-keep-and-bear-what/

That site has a very thorough breakdown, including case law, showing that "arms" was a very broad concept that was contemporary with currently utilized weapons, especially on the context of nation-states (including our own) that may threaten the people with tyranny. To think that the people who overthrew a tyrannical monarchy would limit their own citizens in the future to weapons vastly inferior to contemporary arms is silly.

You are stretching to fit everything within your own tyrannical viewpoint, exactly the reason why those rights are broadly granted and limited in narrowed definition. The FF knew some douchenozzle would attempt to abridge the rights of people in the future, just as the King did to try to disarm certain segments of his population in order to control them.

Now now, that's not where I was headed, at least not yet. My next point was to be that "To think that the people who overthrew a tyrannical monarchy would limit their own citizens in the future to weapons vastly inferior to contemporary arms is silly" My next point was going to be that the notion that the government could legally outlaw machine guns or any weapons would and already has eliminated the possibility of preventing military tyranny. The silly has long since happened. I would think that the idea that we don't have a military tyranny and that we could prevent one may in fact both be fictions.

I would suggest that one reason for this may be that the men of our courts have long ago realized what our forefathers could not imagine, that the technological power of modern weapons in private hands would spell the end of civilization. It would seem to me that the courts have already decided that the threat of weapons in the hands of individuals represents a greater threat than any fantasy of government tyranny.

Just imagine a planet where each person was a state and to defend each person from the tyranny of others each of us had a doomsday weapon. How long do you think we'd last? Perhaps when douchenozzles look around what they see a lot more mass killings than they do US government takeovers by the military. When the government becomes obstructive of the wishes of the -people it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it as to them shall seem most efficacious in producing their safety and happiness, no?

 

[bradly1101]

What?! Are you seriously arguing that settlers didn't need a gun?

I think it's arguable that every settler needed or wanted a gun, but what I'm saying is that it's not written in the constitution. Before the Supreme Court decided that we were all militiamen, in 1876 they ruled in United States v. Cruikshank that "the right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution"

So the fight drags on.............................and since we're not fighting the Indians or grizzly bears any more, we must fight someone, or look ready to. We are men aren't we?

 

[buckshot24]

Back when the constitution was written, militias were essentially the state police (please, look it up). Civilian gun ownership was romanticized in the movies, but was it ever logical?

Who are "the people" in the 2nd amendment?

in 1876 they ruled in United States v. Cruikshank that "the right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution"

Would you mind telling the rest of the story?

 

[Venix]

I think it's arguable that every settler needed or wanted a gun, but what I'm saying is that it's not written in the constitution. Before the Supreme Court decided that we were all militiamen, in 1876 they ruled in United States v. Cruikshank that "the right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution"

This little liar omitted the rest of the quote so he could completely change its meaning. Here's what the Cruikshank opinion actually says:

The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government.

The Constitution does not grant rights, it protects them. The Second Amendment protects a pre-existing right to bear arms. In 1875, the Second Amendment--and the rest of the Bill of Rights--only restricted the federal government, but it's since been incorporated against state governments under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause.

 

[HomerJS]

The case law has been around for quite some time. It has been roundly established that the Militia is every single person in the country. You can look up US v Miller and US v Cruikshank, as well as Madison's (ratification discussion in VA) and other writings.

Black's Law Dictionary also has the definitions of "arms" which is broadly considered something commonly in use at the time.

If militia is every single person in the country why didn't authors of the constitution just say "every single person in the country"?

 

[HamburgerBoy]

If the authors of the Constitution believed there was a right to privacy, why didn't they use the word "privacy"?