At the time the 2cd Amendment was written

[Rich2018]

It seems to me, that only the unorganized militia complains about gun control laws meant for the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People.

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)

That's your interpretation.

 

[danielpalos]

That's your interpretation.

I cited a State Constitution. That State enjoys the full faith and credit of the several United States. Any questions?

 

[Rich2018]

I cited a State Constitution. That State enjoys the full faith and credit of the several United States. Any questions?

But it doesn't say own

So would the old Swiss model meet the requirements of that state Constitution ?

 

[ttwtt78640]

But it doesn't say own

So would the old Swiss model meet the requirements of that state Constitution ?

Nope - an individual (constitutional) right would be rather useless if it could only be exercised with (state) government permission. That would render gun ’keeping’ a mere state issued privilege. Saying that a gun issued by the state is a right when in practice (like Switzerland) it contains the caveat ‘only if the state decides to train and issue that (deemed fit male) person a gun (or gun permit)’ is ridiculous.

 

[Rich2018]

Nope - an individual (constitutional) right would be rather useless if it could only be exercised with (state) government permission.

Why ?
Since the purpose of that right was to support that very state

That would render gun ’keeping’ a mere state issued privilege. Saying that a gun issued by the state is a right when in practice (like Switzerland) it contains the caveat ‘only if the state decides to train and issue that (deemed fit male) person a gun (or gun permit)’ is ridiculous.

No it would make keeping and bearing a duty as well as a right (for able bodied male citizens of military age that is).

 

[ttwtt78640]

Why ?
Since the purpose of that right was to support that very state



No it would make keeping and bearing a duty as well as a right (for able bodied male citizens of military age that is).

Saying that you have the right (which is actually a duty) to obey state orders is not much of a right. I do not consider being drafted into military (or militia) service to be a right - that is simply a duty. That is like saying you have a right to keep a shovel, provided you agree to dig ditches for the state (upon command).

 

[danielpalos]

But it doesn't say own

So would the old Swiss model meet the requirements of that state Constitution ?

The police power is meant for the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People. Our Second Amendment clearly exempts well regulated militia when keeping and bearing Arms for the security needs of a State or the Union.

 

[Rich2018]

Saying that you have the right (which is actually a duty) to obey state orders is not much of a right. I do not consider being drafted into military (or militia) service to be a right - that is simply a duty. That is like saying you have a right to keep a shovel, provided you agree to dig ditches for the state (upon command).

You have a right to keep a gun at home, in order so that you may more easily serve in the militia
You have the right to bear that firearm, while on service with the militia

So the needs of the militia are met, all citizen militiamen keep a firearm at home. This worked for the Swiss, why would it work in the USA

The objective is to maintain an effective militia, to ensure the security of a free state. Nothing more.

 

[Rich2018]

The police power is meant for the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People. Our Second Amendment clearly exempts well regulated militia when keeping and bearing Arms for the security needs of a State or the Union.

No-one is exempted under the text of the 2nd Amendment (though it was understood that militia service is reserved for able bodied, male, citizens, of military age).

 

[ttwtt78640]

You have a right to keep a gun at home, in order so that you may more easily serve in the militia
You have the right to bear that firearm, while on service with the militia

So the needs of the militia are met, all citizen militiamen keep a firearm at home. This worked for the Swiss, why would it work in the USA

The objective is to maintain an effective militia, to ensure the security of a free state. Nothing more.

Your interpretation of the 2A “objective” differs from that of the SCOTUS which (per DC v. Heller) saw no linkage between a person’s militia status and their right as a person to be armed.

It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense or if the right was intended for state militias.

District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Rich2018]

Your interpretation of the 2A “objective” differs from that of the SCOTUS which (per DC v. Heller) saw no linkage between a person’s militia status and their right as a person to be armed.

Absolutely it does

But it's no less of a valid interpretation

Mostly because the 2nd Amendment is so badly written.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Absolutely it does

But it's no less of a valid interpretation

Mostly because the 2nd Amendment is so badly written.

I agree that the 2A could have been written better (no need to assert/include precisely why any particular “right of the people to...” exists), but disagree that your (or my) interpretation is less valid than that of a SCOTUS decision (precedent).

I also find it puzzling that many seem to want ownership of “military style” guns to be exempted from 2A protection, while also overstating the importance of the ‘militia clause‘ of the 2A. Why, exactly, would a militia not have use for “military style” guns?

 

[Rich2018]

I agree that the 2A could have been written better (no need to assert/include precisely why any particular “right of the people to...” exists), but disagree that your (or my) interpretation is less valid than that of a SCOTUS decision (precedent).

I also find it puzzling that many seem to want ownership of “military style” guns to be exempted from 2A protection, while also overstating the importance of the ‘militia clause‘ of the 2A. Why, exactly, would a militia not have use for “military style” guns?

There was no need...

But the maintenance of the militia was the goal, as it is clearly stated in the 2nd Amendment.

This was in the days of everyone having a muzzle loading musket. Not some hand gun that's worse than useless for a militiaman.

 

[ttwtt78640]

There was no need...

But the maintenance of the militia was the goal, as it is clearly stated in the 2nd Amendment.

This was in the days of everyone having a muzzle loading musket. Not some hand gun that's worse than useless for a militiaman.

The goal (of the BoR amendment package) was to prevent the federal government from ever taking certain rights away from the people (without due process) or taking additional (not previously enumerated) powers from the states. The later ‘incorporation’ of (most) of those individual rights, also prevented the states from removing them (without due process).

 

[Rich2018]

The goal (of the BoR amendment package) was to prevent the federal government from ever taking certain rights away from the people (without due process) or taking additional (not previously enumerated) powers from the states. The later ‘incorporation’ of (most) of those individual rights, also prevented the states from removing them (without due process).

Indirectly

Via the maintenance of an armed militia

The 2nd Amendment was written to ensure the militia was maintained.

 

[danielpalos]

You have a right to keep a gun at home, in order so that you may more easily serve in the militia

Subject to the police power of a State, Individual Persons of the People have a right to defense of self and property, no well regulated militia service required.

 

[danielpalos]

No-one is exempted under the text of the 2nd Amendment (though it was understood that militia service is reserved for able bodied, male, citizens, of military age).

Yes, they are. Well regulated militia of the whole and entire People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for the security needs of their free State.

 

[Rich2018]

Subject to the police power of a State, Individual Persons of the People have a right to defense of self and property, no well regulated militia service required.

Everyone has a right to self defense, but that wasn't the reason that the 2nd Amendment was written

Yes, they are. Well regulated militia of the whole and entire People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for the security needs of their free State.

So who is exempt ?

I said:

" No-one is exempted under the text of the 2nd Amendment ..."


With the caveat that they must be able bodied, male, citizens, of military age.