[W:1311]The Second Amendment - A Military Right to Bear Arms

[Rich2018]

Nope, but the SCOTUS has ruled the 2A as being a right of the people independent from their militia status.

i didn't t...

Just another example of the SC twisting the words of the Constitution.

That ruling wasn't 9:0 was it ?

 

[Rucker61]

The militia, no longer exists. It has been replaced with professional soldiers. There are lots of laws on the books which are obsolete. The militia is one of them.

Until 10 USC 246 is removed as federal law, and until the various states whose constitutions define militias for those states, they do in fact exist. The Texas State Guard is one such state militia.

Regardless, the right of individual American citizens and permanent resident aliens to keep and bear arms is not dependent on membership in or the existence of any militia.

 

[Rucker61]

i didn't t...

Just another example of the SC twisting the words of the Constitution.

That ruling wasn't 9:0 was it ?

Doesn't have to be, does it? Was Roe v Wade? Was Obergefell v Hodgs?

 

[ttwtt78640]

i didn't t...

Just another example of the SC twisting the words of the Constitution.

That ruling wasn't 9:0 was it ?

Neither individual rights nor constitutional amendments disappear based on your opinion.

 

[Rich2018]

Doesn't have to be, does it?

No it doesn't


But the point is that if the Constitution was clear...why don't US Supreme Court Justices agree ?
The point is that a different set of people on the SC could have ruled against that. So when you refer to The SC, you're just referring to the 9 people who happened to be SC justices at the time of any given ruling.
Don't you think the US Constitution is flawed if the highest court in the land cannot be unanimous ?
I mean the law is meant to be black and white. It is the law.


The truth is that the SC Justices have their own belief systems...as everybody does.

Trump this week went on record as accusing a federal judge as an "Obama Judge" earning him a rebuke from the Chief Justice.

 

[TurtleDude]

i didn't t...

Just another example of the SC twisting the words of the Constitution.

That ruling wasn't 9:0 was it ?

why don't you tell us what the founders intended.

if you even hint that the federal government was delegated any power to restrict what arms private citizens could keep and bear, you fail.

 

[Rucker61]

No it doesn't


But the point is that if the Constitution was clear...why don't US Supreme Court Justices agree ?
The point is that a different set of people on the SC could have ruled against that. So when you refer to The SC, you're just referring to the 9 people who happened to be SC justices at the time of any given ruling.
Don't you think the US Constitution is flawed if the highest court in the land cannot be unanimous ?
I mean the law is meant to be black and white. It is the law.


The truth is that the SC Justices have their own belief systems...as everybody does.

Trump this week went on record as accusing a federal judge as an "Obama Judge" earning him a rebuke from the Chief Justice.

Why aren't all SC decisions 9-0? Why aren't all Circuit Court decisions 3-0?

 

[Manc Skipper]

Until 10 USC 246 is removed as federal law, and until the various states whose constitutions define militias for those states, they do in fact exist. The Texas State Guard is one such state militia.

Regardless, the right of individual American citizens and permanent resident aliens to keep and bear arms is not dependent on membership in or the existence of any militia.

Why are militias mentioned in the amendment at all then? The right was given in order to maintain a weaponised militia to be called on in time of need, since there was no standing army.

 

[haymarket]

Nope, but the SCOTUS has ruled the 2A as being a right of the people independent from their militia status.

That is correct. Given that reality - the entire attempt to tie in with the militia seems irrelevant.

 

[Media_Truth]

Nope, but the SCOTUS has ruled the 2A as being a right of the people independent from their militia status.

You keep saying this, but it is simply not the case. Throughout US history the Supreme Court has used the Militia argument of Amendment 2. I cited a few in this thread.

 

[TurtleDude]

Why are militias mentioned in the amendment at all then? The right was given in order to maintain a weaponised militia to be called on in time of need, since there was no standing army.

what was the pre-existing right the second guaranteed? remember, the second was not intended to create a NEW RIGHT but merely recognize one the founders believed existed since the beginning of mankind.

 

[TurtleDude]

You keep saying this, but it is simply not the case. Throughout US history the Supreme Court has used the Militia argument of Amendment 2. I cited a few in this thread.

where did the supreme court ever claim the right did not vest unless one was in the militia?

 

[Media_Truth]

Why are militias mentioned in the amendment at all then? The right was given in order to maintain a weaponised militia to be called on in time of need, since there was no standing army.

Exactly right!!! You may have seen the original House text of the 2nd Amendment. The Conscientious Objector portion didn't end up as part of the Amendment, however this absolutely verifies the Military aspect.

“A well regulated militia,” it explained, “composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

 

[TurtleDude]

Exactly right!!! You may have seen the original House text of the 2nd Amendment. The Conscientious Objector portion didn't end up as part of the Amendment, however this absolutely verifies the Military aspect.

“A well regulated militia,” it explained, “composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

that still doesn't even begin to suggest the federal government could ban or limit what private citizens could keep or bear

 

[haymarket]

Any that are natural born Americans or permanent resident aliens that aren't prohibited persons.

Why do the words - THERE ARE NO LONGER ANY FREED SLAVES ALIVE - so difficult for you to say?

 

[Lursa]

One need look no further than the actual text of the 2nd Amendment to realize that the context is Military, and only Military.

It says militia, not military.

And what makes you think we're not exactly that (militia)? An armed body that can be called up and used if needed?

 

[ttwtt78640]

That is correct. Given that reality - the entire attempt to tie in with the militia seems irrelevant.

On that point, I disagree - it is useful for determining the types of arms to which the 2A applies. It is amusing to see folks argue that the militia clause is important unless it is used to prove (provide?) intent that "military style" arms (guns like "assault rifles") are precisely what the 2A was intended to allow the people to keep and bear.

 

[Media_Truth]

where did the supreme court ever claim the right did not vest unless one was in the militia?

The Supreme Court doesn't have to reiterate this statement. It is clearly stated in Amendment 2. However, the Supreme Court has cited the "Well Regulated Militia" statement in rulings.

https://www.livescience.com/26485-second-amendment.html

...U.S. v. Miller in 1939. In that case, Jack Miller and Frank Layton were arrested for carrying an unregistered sawed-off shotgun across state lines, which had been prohibited since the National Firearms Act was enacted five years earlier. Miller argued that the National Firearms Act violated their rights under the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court disagreed, however, saying "in the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

 

[Rucker61]

On that point, I disagree - it is useful for determining the types of arms to which the 2A applies. It is amusing to see folks argue that the militia clause is important unless it is used to prove (provide?) intent that "military style" arms (guns like "assault rifles") are precisely what the 2A was intended to allow the people to keep and bear.

Which is basically what Miller said, that an individual not in a militia can be charged for possession of a weapon not useful to the militia. If militia membership was a requirement, the decision would have been that no weapon is protected for anyone not in a militia.

 

[ttwtt78640]

You keep saying this, but it is simply not the case. Throughout US history the Supreme Court has used the Militia argument of Amendment 2. I cited a few in this thread.

Yep, except for cases (like Heller vs. DC) when it has not done so.

 

[Rucker61]

The Supreme Court doesn't have to reiterate this statement. It is clearly stated in Amendment 2. However, the Supreme Court has cited the "Well Regulated Militia" statement in rulings.

https://www.livescience.com/26485-second-amendment.html

...U.S. v. Miller in 1939. In that case, Jack Miller and Frank Layton were arrested for carrying an unregistered sawed-off shotgun across state lines, which had been prohibited since the National Firearms Act was enacted five years earlier. Miller argued that the National Firearms Act violated their rights under the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court disagreed, however, saying "in the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

Miller was not in a militia, yet SCOTUS affirmed that weapons useful to a militia would have been protected, unlike the sawed off shotgun in possession by someone not in a militia. Jack Miller's sole defense was the individual right to keep and bear arms; if that right wasn't recognized, he would have had no standing before SCOTUS or any of the lower courts.

 

[Rucker61]

Why do the words - THERE ARE NO LONGER ANY FREED SLAVES ALIVE - so difficult for you to say?

Because it simply isn't true.

 

[Media_Truth]

It says militia, not military.

And what makes you think we're not exactly that (militia)? An armed body that can be called up and used if needed?

I agree 100%. Citizens can be called on for Militia duty. Furthermore, the same Congress that would authorize the financing of this militia duty, could also claim that it is not required (i.e. during times of Military peace, etc).

 

[Rucker61]

Why are militias mentioned in the amendment at all then? The right was given in order to maintain a weaponised militia to be called on in time of need, since there was no standing army.

Given that Congress has complete power to restrict the arms and organization of the militia, what does the Second actually protect? It cannot protect the militia, as Congress was granted complete power over the arms and organization of the militia. The militia clause is a sufficient but not necessary requirement. Perhaps this may explain it for you:

"(a) 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. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28"

 

[TurtleDude]

The Supreme Court doesn't have to reiterate this statement. It is clearly stated in Amendment 2. However, the Supreme Court has cited the "Well Regulated Militia" statement in rulings.

https://www.livescience.com/26485-second-amendment.html

...U.S. v. Miller in 1939. In that case, Jack Miller and Frank Layton were arrested for carrying an unregistered sawed-off shotgun across state lines, which had been prohibited since the National Firearms Act was enacted five years earlier. Miller argued that the National Firearms Act violated their rights under the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court disagreed, however, saying "in the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

if it was only a right that vests for those in the militia-why wasn't Miller's claim dismissed on that ground.

you do know that the court at that time was nothing more than a lapdog for FDR and yet even the justices didn't rule in favor of FDR completely. The entire Miller case was collusion between FDR's executive branch and anti gun judges to uphold a law that most knew violated the tenth and second amendments.

http://migration.nyulaw.me/sites/default/files/ECM_PRO_060964.pdf

This essay concludes that Miller is coherent, but largely ir- relevant to the contemporary debate over the meaning of the Sec- ond Amendment. Miller was a Second Amendment test case, teed up with a nominal defendant by a district judge sympathetic to New Deal gun control measures. But the Supreme Court issued a surprisingly narrow decision. Essentially, it held that the Second Amendment permits Congress to tax firearms used by criminals.