The 2nd Amendment's rogue

[DHard3006]

Well Regulated

This pertains to the militias not the people.

Militia definition according to U.S. Law:

TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311§ 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are— (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

So people out side of the 17 to 45 age thing do not have a right to bear arms?

 

[AlbqOwl]

This pertains to the militias not the people.

So people out side of the 17 to 45 age thing do not have a right to bear arms?

I'm sure it has been said probably several times in this thread, but the Second Amendment refers to the necessity of a well organized militia as the reason that the right to bear arms shall not be denied; but however the militia is defined, the wording of the amendment does not restrict the right to bear arms to the militia.

(I'm using your post to frame mine. I know that you know this.)

 

[M14 Shooter]

I'm sure it has been said probably several times in this thread, but the Second Amendment refers to the necessity of a well organized militia as the reason that the right to bear arms shall not be denied; but however the militia is defined, the wording of the amendment does not restrict the right to bear arms to the militia.

This is correct.
The Militia is a subset of The People.
The People, not the militia, has the right to arms.

 

[DHard3006]

I'm sure it has been said probably several times in this thread, but the Second Amendment refers to the necessity of a well organized militia as the reason that the right to bear arms shall not be denied; but however the militia is defined, the wording of the amendment does not restrict the right to bear arms to the militia.

Well you are reading more into it. No where does it say what you claim.
The 2nd amend states militias can be regulated. No where does it say a person must be in a militia to bear arms.
The 2nd amend states the right of the people, not the right of the militia. The 2nd amend states well regulated militia not well regulated people.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Well you are reading more into it. No where does it say what you claim.
The 2nd amend states militias can be regulated. No where does it say a person must be in a militia to bear arms.
The 2nd amend states the right of the people, not the right of the militia. The 2nd amend states well regulated militia not well regulated people.

??? I think you should read my post again. I think you very much misinterpreted what I said.

 

[DHard3006]

??? I think you should read my post again. I think you very much misinterpreted what I said.

I did not do no such thing.

 

[AlbqOwl]

I did not do no such thing.

Okay. Then I would recommend a remedial reading course. I don't know what else to say if I tell you you misinterpreted what I said and you deny that you did.

 

[swampkritter]

This pertains to the militias not the people.

So people out side of the 17 to 45 age thing do not have a right to bear arms?

The people from the ages of 17 to 45 ARE the militia. This includes civillians as well as millitary according to the law I quoted.

Obviously, the right to bear arms isn't exclusively for the militia, if it were, the ammendment would say the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The words "the people" mean the same thing in all ammendments to the bill of rights.

 

[DHard3006]

Okay. Then I would recommend a remedial reading course.

You may wish to do the same thing.

The people from the ages of 17 to 45 ARE the militia. This includes civillians as well as millitary according to the law I quoted.

Obviously, the right to bear arms isn't exclusively for the militia, if it were, the ammendment would say the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The words "the people" mean the same thing in all ammendments to the bill of rights.

You keep spewing this militia crap. What did you post. The age requirements to be in a militia. Is that what you posted? Yes it is. Now you are spewing these age requirements are also for people not in the militia.

So I will ask you once again, what about the people that do not fall into the age requirements? Do they have a right to bear arms? So do you see how wrong you militia lie is?

Not to mention the well regulated crap. Regulated means what? A group of people can pass rules on what a militia can do.

See you so called pro right to bear arms person. You have just placed an infringement on the right to bear arms by spewing you militia crap.

 

[TurtleDude]

TurtleDude the Cornell Law graduate and former lecturer on second amendment issues steps in.

1) according to most scholars including Volokh, being in the militia is not a necessary condition to KBA. In other words, this right is recognized for the people.

2) a few ARC activists claim otherwise-one is a fellow who goes by the handle "jimmy the one" who cruises various boards claiming that 18th century "historian" Rawle claimed that the second clause of the amendment is subordinate to the first and thus only members of the well regulated militia are guaranteed the right under the second. This is an amusing hallucination given the fact that the national guard didn't exist in 1790 or so and since the national guard can be federalized it subordinates the rights of the people and the several states to federal fiat. There are two better ways to read this amendment than the ARC delusion

a) in order to have a well regulated militia (IE a standing militia which regularly drills rather than an unorganized militia which does not) the populace must be armed so when they join they have arms

b) a well regulated militia was the closest thing to a standing army back then and it is a necessary evil for a nation but in order to prevent it from being more evil than necessary, the counterbalancing force of an armed populace was needed

Another point that the ARC avoids is the fact that if the second amendment only applies to the well regulated militia-ie men under arms regularly drilling under the command of state or federal officers, then the preexisting and clearly assumed right of the people is guaranteed by both the 9th and the 10th amendments because only the most arrogant of FDR jurisprudence advocates truly believe that the commerce clause was intended to be a general regulatory provision empowering the federal government to control small arms

bottom line, the Bill of rights guarantees the preexisting natural right of citizens to keep and bear small arms and claims to the contrary are based upon statist outcome based dishonest interpretations of the constitution guided by the knowledge that federal gun control laws are unconstitutional and thus the constitution must be subverted in order to achieve the desired regulation

 

[M14 Shooter]

there are two better ways to read this amendment than the ARC delusion:

a) in order to have a well regulated militia (IE a standing militia which regularly drills rather than an unorganized militia which does not) the populace must be armed so when they join they have arms

This is correct.

b) a well regulated militia was the closest thing to a standing army back then and it is a necessary evil for a nation but in order to prevent it from being more evil than necessary, the counterbalancing force of an armed populace was needed

This is partially incorrect.
There has been a standing army since 1775.

The miltia exists to assist and/or resist the standing army when necessary. To this end, the Constitution protects the right of the people in total so that they would always have the means to form militia, when necessary.

 

[TurtleDude]

M14 shooter-a couple points

What is the reference to the standing army in the constitution?

The concept of the national guard being a state well regulated militia lost importance in terms of a balance when the power of the President to federalize a state national guard unit was created

 

[M14 Shooter]

What is the reference to the standing army in the constitution?

That the Congress has the power to raise and maintain it, and that the President is in charge. There's been a standing army here since June 1775.

The concept of the national guard being a state well regulated militia lost importance in terms of a balance when the power of the President to federalize a state national guard unit was created

Of course. The NG is not the milita referenced by the Constitution; it is part of the standing army.

 

[AlbqOwl]

That the Congress has the power to raise and maintain it, and that the President is in charge. There's been a standing army here since June 1775.


Of course. The NG is not the milita referenced by the Constitution; it is part of the standing army.

Correct. As I understand it, the militia was intended to be everybody that can be summoned as a posse or 'deputized' as an impromptu army to defend their community or their country. It is assumed that such an impromptu and temporary group would be subject to a local or federal authority. The age limits are to give authority to exclude the kids and the elderly and initially only men were included. These days, however, I don't think much importance would be put on either gender or age if it was necessary to call up the militia. The 'regulated' part assumed that somebody qualified would be in authority as opposed to a vigilante system which is under no civil or military authority.

 

[DHard3006]

natural right of citizens to keep and bear small arms

Where does the 2nd amend mention small arms? No where! The 2nd amend simply states arms.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Where does the 2nd amend mention small arms? No where! The 2nd amend simply states arms.

US v Miller.
"Arms" refers to weapons that would be useful to the militia.

At least, this would cover anything similar to what's found in your typical infantry company.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Correct. As I understand it, the militia was intended to be everybody that can be summoned as a posse or 'deputized' as an impromptu army to defend their community or their country. It is assumed that such an impromptu and temporary group would be subject to a local or federal authority.

Generally, I agree with this.

However, the right to self-defense exercised collectively is based upon the individual right to self defense. Your individual right to self-defense is not subject to federal, state or local authority.

 

[DHard3006]

US v Miller.
"Arms" refers to weapons that would be useful to the militia.

Well so called pro right to bear arms person.
What guns were banned by the late AWB?
Militia type firearms.
What type of firearms are banned in states like CA?
Militia type firearms.

If these firearms are protected as you claim by that there miller case why are militia type firearms being banned?

 

[AlbqOwl]

Generally, I agree with this.

However, the right to self-defense exercised collectively is based upon the individual right to self defense. Your individual right to self-defense is not subject to federal, state or local authority.

Yes. But when we act individually to defend our persons or our property, we are not acting as the militia. They are two separate things, both addressed and constitutionally protected by the Second Amendment. You could say that the right to bear arms is necessary so that there can be a militia when necessary I guess.

The First Amendment protects three things: speech, the right to whatever religious beliefs we hold, and the right to the free exercise of our religious faith. Just like they do with the Second Amendment, some try to tie these things together into one freedom. But they are separate things incorporated into one amendment.

ATTENTION TO EVERYBODY: I used the First Amendment as illustration only. I do NOT intend to debate the First Amendment in this thread so don't even try.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Well so called pro right to bear arms person.
What guns were banned by the late AWB?
Militia type firearms.
What type of firearms are banned in states like CA?
Militia type firearms.
If these firearms are protected as you claim by that there miller case why are militia type firearms being banned?

They are being banned because:
-legislators pass laws that ban them
-Courts have upheld the bans
-The USSC hasnt yet overturned the decisions upholding the bans.

There's no argument, however, that these -weapons- arent protetcted by the 2nd, just that the 2nd doesnt protect an individual right to own them.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You could say that (the protection for) the right to bear arms is necessary so that there can be a militia when necessary I guess.

This is exactly correct.

 

[DHard3006]

There's no argument, however, that these -weapons- arent protetcted by the 2nd, just that the 2nd doesnt protect an individual right to own them.

The miller case stated if a firearm has a militia use it is protected by the 2nd amend.
What guns were banned by the late AWB?
Militia type firearms.
What type of firearms are banned in states like CA?
Militia type firearms.
These firearms banned have a militia use!

 

[M14 Shooter]

The miller case stated if a firearm has a militia use it is protected by the 2nd amend.
What guns were banned by the late AWB?
Militia type firearms.
What type of firearms are banned in states like CA?
Militia type firearms.
These firearms banned have a militia use!

OK, you missed what I said:

There's no argument, however, that these -weapons- arent protetcted by the 2nd, just that the 2nd doesnt protect an individual right to own them.

The argument isnt that the weapons isnt protected, its that you dont have a right to own it.

 

[DHard3006]

The argument isnt that the weapons isnt protected, its that you dont have a right to own it.

The miller case stated if a firearm has a militia use it is protected by the 2ndamend. The 2nd amend protects the right of the people to bear arms. So if the so called pro right to bear arms people are going to use the miller case why are guns banned in some states?
This shoots a hole in your claim.

 

[TurtleDude]

That the Congress has the power to raise and maintain it, and that the President is in charge. There's been a standing army here since June 1775.


Of course. The NG is not the milita referenced by the Constitution; it is part of the standing army.

I think we are on the same page-we just opened the book differently :2wave: