Why the Second Amendment Exists.

[Visbek]

When was the citizenry denied the right to keep and bear arms at any time during our history?

Let's see

• Catholics were barred from owning firearms in Maryland during the French & Indian War
• During the Revolution, confiscation of firearms (in part to disarm Loyalists, in part to arm militias) were common
• Free blacks were barred from owning firearms (especially in the South, after the Civil War)
• National Firearms Act banned citizens from owning various types of firearms

Does that count? Do we also have to talk about the Mulford Act, or DC's restrictive firearm laws?

Why did the Gun Control Act of 1968 and Brady Act of 1992 not mention the word "militia" at all?

As I already pointed out: You have the concept backwards.

The power to regulate firearms does not derive from Congress' regulation of the militia. It is that the 2nd Amendment restricts Congress because of the need for a functional militia.

 

[Rucker61]

Let's see

• Catholics were barred from owning firearms in Maryland during the French & Indian War
• During the Revolution, confiscation of firearms (in part to disarm Loyalists, in part to arm militias) were common
• Free blacks were barred from owning firearms (especially in the South, after the Civil War)
• National Firearms Act banned citizens from owning various types of firearms

Does that count? Do we also have to talk about the Mulford Act, or DC's restrictive firearm laws?

Federally. Prior to McDonald, the states were empowered to restrict firearms in all kinds of crazy manners.

NFA 1934 didn't prevent ownership of any firearms.

As I already pointed out: You have the concept backwards.

The power to regulate firearms does not derive from Congress' regulation of the militia. It is that the 2nd Amendment restricts Congress because of the need for a functional militia.

But the Second Amendment doesn't restrict Congress. If they declared that the militia can only use swords, that's perfectly Constitutional.

Congress shouldn't have any power to restrict firearms ownership; it's just been assumed by the government. The states certainly shouldn't have the power to restrict ownership of firearms "having a reasonable relationship to the preservation and efficiency of a well regulate militia".

 

[vegas giants]

Federally. Prior to McDonald, the states were empowered to restrict firearms in all kinds of crazy manners.

NFA 1934 didn't prevent ownership of any firearms.



But the Second Amendment doesn't restrict Congress. If they declared that the militia can only use swords, that's perfectly Constitutional.

Congress shouldn't have any power to restrict firearms ownership; it's just been assumed by the government. The states certainly shouldn't have the power to restrict ownership of firearms "having a reasonable relationship to the preservation and efficiency of a well regulate militia".

Wickard resolved this a generation ago

 

[Master PO]

Federally. Prior to McDonald, the states were empowered to restrict firearms in all kinds of crazy manners.

NFA 1934 didn't prevent ownership of any firearms.



But the Second Amendment doesn't restrict Congress. If they declared that the militia can only use swords, that's perfectly Constitutional.

Congress shouldn't have any power to restrict firearms ownership; it's just been assumed by the government. The states certainly shouldn't have the power to restrict ownership of firearms "having a reasonable relationship to the preservation and efficiency of a well regulate militia".

most people have never read the FIRST PART of preamble to the BILL of RIGHTS.


THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its [*federal] powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

* added by me

the bill of rights are restrictions on federal powers, for congress to make no laws pertaining whats in them.

the 2nd is a 2 part amendment, that the federal government cannot make laws controlling the militias of states, or laws concerning the people bearing arms.

militias are state entities, and if the federal government seeks to use them they must get state permission....militia acts 1792 and 1795

 

[Rucker61]

most people have never read the FIRST PART of preamble to the BILL of RIGHTS.


THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its [*federal] powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

Given that Article 1, Section 8 gave full control over the "organizing, arming and discipline" of the Militia to Congress, how could that power be unconstitutionally abused?

If the Second is to prevent the abuse of the arming provision to protect the states' militia, how are those militia protected if Congress organizes the militia to be a single person in each state?

* added by me

the bill of rights are restrictions on federal powers, for congress to make no laws pertaining whats in them.

the 2nd is a 2 part amendment, that the federal government cannot make laws controlling the militias of states, or laws concerning the people bearing arms.

militias are state entities, and if the federal government seeks to use them they must get state permission....militia acts 1792 and 1795

There's no "state permission" there- the President can simply issue orders.

"United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, to call forth such number of the militia of the state or states most convenient to the place of danger or scene of action as he may judge necessary to repel such invasion, and to issue his orders for that purpose, to such officer or officers of the militia as he shall think proper; and in case of an insurrection in any state, against the government thereof, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, on application of the legislature of such state, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) to call forth such number of the militia of any other state or states, as may be applied for, or as he may judge sufficient to suppress such insurrection."


The Militia Act of 1792

 

[Master PO]

Given that Article 1, Section 8 gave full control over the "organizing, arming and discipline" of the Militia to Congress, how could that power be unconstitutionally abused?

If the Second is to prevent the abuse of the arming provision to protect the states' militia, how are those militia protected if Congress organizes the militia to be a single person in each state?



There's no "state permission" there- the President can simply issue orders.

"United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, to call forth such number of the militia of the state or states most convenient to the place of danger or scene of action as he may judge necessary to repel such invasion, and to issue his orders for that purpose, to such officer or officers of the militia as he shall think proper; and in case of an insurrection in any state, against the government thereof, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, on application of the legislature of such state, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) to call forth such number of the militia of any other state or states, as may be applied for, or as he may judge sufficient to suppress such insurrection."


The Militia Act of 1792

the constitution delegates the federal government the power to create uniformity[ standards] among the state militias

so that all the militias employ the same formations, ranks , and minimum requirements for men in the militias

the militia act of 1792 and 1795 - the militias of the states are state entities and not under federal control, the federal government must get the permission of the state if the federal government wishes to use the states militia.

while the federal government can create laws creating uniformity for the militias, it does not execute the law, the state executes the law.

 

[Rucker61]

the constitution delegates the federal government the power to create uniformity[ standards] among the state militias

so that all the militias employ the same formations, ranks , and minimum requirements for men in the militias

the militia act of 1792 and 1795 - the militias of the states are state entities and not under federal control, the federal government must get the permission of the state if the federal government wishes to use the states militia.

while the federal government can create laws creating uniformity for the militias, it does not execute the law, the state executes the law.

Where does it show that the President must get permission? The word "orders" shows up five times in reference to those issued by the President; the word "permission" or synonym is not so easily found.

Where does it preclude the Congress from limiting the organization of the militia to a single member from each state?

Where does it prevent the Congress from infringing on the arms of the Militia? In Section 1 of the Second Militia Act, Congress limits the arms of the Militia to rifles and "from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound".


The Militia Act of 1792

1795 Act For Calling Forth The Militia

 

[Master PO]

Where does it show that the President must get permission? The word "orders" shows up five times in reference to those issued by the President; the word "permission" or synonym is not so easily found.

Where does it preclude the Congress from limiting the organization of the militia to a single member from each state?

Where does it prevent the Congress from infringing on the arms of the Militia? In Section 1 of the Second Militia Act, Congress limits the arms of the Militia to rifles and "from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound".


The Militia Act of 1792

1795 Act For Calling Forth The Militia

Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, to call forth such number of the militia of the state or states most convenient to the place of danger or scene of action as he may judge necessary to repel such invasion, and to issue his orders for that purpose, to such officer or officers of the militia as he shall think proper; and in case of an insurrection in any state, against the government thereof, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, on application of the legislature of such state, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) to call forth such number of the militia of any other state or states, as may be applied for, or as he may judge sufficient to suppress such insurrection.

Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act, the same being notified to the President of the United States, by an associate justice or the district judge, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia of such state to suppress such combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed. And if the militia of a state, where such combinations may happen, shall refuse, or be insufficient to suppress the same, it shall be lawful for the President, if the legislature of the United States be not in session, to call forth and employ such numbers of the militia of any other state or states most convenient thereto, as may be necessary, and the use of militia, so to be called forth, may be continued, if necessary, until the expiration of thirty days after the commencement of the ensuing session.

 

[Rucker61]

Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, to call forth such number of the militia of the state or states most convenient to the place of danger or scene of action as he may judge necessary to repel such invasion, and to issue his orders for that purpose, to such officer or officers of the militia as he shall think proper; and in case of an insurrection in any state, against the government thereof, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, on application of the legislature of such state, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) to call forth such number of the militia of any other state or states, as may be applied for, or as he may judge sufficient to suppress such insurrection.

Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act, the same being notified to the President of the United States, by an associate justice or the district judge, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia of such state to suppress such combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed. And if the militia of a state, where such combinations may happen, shall refuse, or be insufficient to suppress the same, it shall be lawful for the President, if the legislature of the United States be not in session, to call forth and employ such numbers of the militia of any other state or states most convenient thereto, as may be necessary, and the use of militia, so to be called forth, may be continued, if necessary, until the expiration of thirty days after the commencement of the ensuing session.

Note that those clauses do not appear in the Militia Act of 1795.

"The 1795 Act For Calling Forth The Militia

An Act to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions; and to repeal the act now in force for those purposes, 28 February 1795."

1795 Act For Calling Forth The Militia

 

[Master PO]

Note that those clauses do not appear in the Militia Act of 1795.

"The 1795 Act For Calling Forth The Militia

An Act to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions; and to repeal the act now in force for those purposes, 28 February 1795."

1795 Act For Calling Forth The Militia

yes it does

the president is given the power to call out militias on his own for rebellions in mar 1861, 1 month before the civil war and given the power to call then out for insurrections in 1869

the insurrection act of 1807 gives the president the power to deploy u.s.troops to quell rebellions , insurrection and lawlessness

the 1795 act does not have the associate justice or the district judge within it

 

[Rucker61]

yes it does

the president is given the power to call out militias on his own for rebellions in mar 1861, 1 month before the civil war and given the power to call then out for insurrections in 1869

the insurrection act of 1807 gives the president the power to deploy u.s.troops to quell rebellions , insurrection and lawlessness

the 1795 act does not have the associate justice or the district judge within it

The Act of 1795 revokes the Acts of 1792, and thus the states no longer have the power to refuse the orders of the President with regards to the calling up of the militia.

 

[Master PO]

The Act of 1795 revokes the Acts of 1792, and thus the states no longer have the power to refuse the orders of the President with regards to the calling up of the militia.

the 1792 act is revoked however the president still has to apply to the states, ..its in there

refuse applies to the state with the rebellion, insurrection only, not any other state

And if the militia of a state, where such combinations may happen, shall refuse, or be insufficient to suppress the same,

 

[VanceMack]

Stop the madness.



Yes, and my point is that the 2nd Amendment was NOT written to protect her right to bear arms based on self-defense -- as should be obvious, as it never mentions self-defense. The text of the 2A is quite clear: It is preventing Congress (and just Congress) from writing gun laws that are so strict that they interfere with the functioning of the militia.



lol

Sorry dude, but it has changed substantially since 1791. Women were not eligible for militia service; they rarely worked outside the home; no one expected women to defend themselves with firearms; they couldn't vote; their property rights were restricted, and so on. Militias were common in the 1790s, and today they are all but gone. And again, it is obvious that some people's ideas about gun rights have changed substantially over the centuries, which results in these types of blatant misreadings of the original intent of the 2A.

And of course, if the goal was to protect the right to bear arms based on self-defense, then why didn't they write it that way? Why mention militias at all? Why did the draft version of the 2nd Amendment provide an exception for military service to religious conscientious objectors?



I find it slightly hilarious that in the very attempt to proclaim that the 2A is "simple," you display precisely that it is anything but.

• Definitions of militias have changed over time
• The role of militias have changed over time
• The role of women has changed over time
• We have centuries of laws and jurisprudence which influence the actual legal application of the 2A
• That jurisprudence includes a complex (as well as deeply hypocritical) wholesale rewriting of the 2A by the SCOTUS, which jettisons half the text of the amendment
• Incorporation of the BoR to the states is not simple, and in fact it often goes right over people's heads (including the fact that the 2A was not incorporated to the states until 2010)

Thanks for helping me make my case.

I'll work on 'the madness' part...you work on stopping the stupid.

Your arguments are ridiculous. I think you know it. You arent stupid enough to suggest the other 9 amendments are obsolete due to the 1700s understanding of 'the people'. And yet...you have no problem putting on the stupid and making that claim where the right to keep and bear arms are concerned.

The intent of the 2nd Amendment, then and now, was to ensure that the rights of the people to keep and bear military grade firearms in the defense of a free state is as real and relevant today as it was 240 years ago. Feel free to read it.

 

[Rucker61]

the 1792 act is revoked however the president still has to apply to the states, ..its in there

refuse applies to the state with the rebellion, insurrection only, not any other state

And if the militia of a state, where such combinations may happen, shall refuse, or be insufficient to suppress the same,

Here's a link to the text of the Militia Act of 1795 - nowhere does the clause you quote appear. This one does, though:

"SEC. 10. That the act entitled "An act to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions;" passed the 2d day of May, 1792, shall be, and the same is hereby, repealed."

1795 Act For Calling Forth The Militia

 

[Master PO]

Here's a link to the text of the Militia Act of 1795 - nowhere does the clause you quote appear. This one does, though:

"SEC. 10. That the act entitled "An act to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions;" passed the 2d day of May, 1792, shall be, and the same is hereby, repealed."

1795 Act For Calling Forth The Militia

from your link

The 1795 Act For Calling Forth The Militia


An Act to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions; and to repeal the act now in force for those purposes, 28 February 1795.

That whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion, from any foreign nation or Indian tribe, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth such number of the militia of the state or states, most convenient to the place of danger, or scene of action, as he may judge necessary to repel such invasion, and to issue his orders, for that purpose, to such officer or officers of the militia as he shall think proper. And in case of an insurrection in any state, against the government thereof, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, on application of the legislature of such state, or of the Executive, (when the legislature cannot be convened,) to call forth such number of the militia of any other state or states, as may be applied for, as he may judge sufficient to suppress such insurrection.

 

[Rucker61]

from your link

The 1795 Act For Calling Forth The Militia


An Act to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions; and to repeal the act now in force for those purposes, 28 February 1795.

That whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion, from any foreign nation or Indian tribe, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth such number of the militia of the state or states, most convenient to the place of danger, or scene of action, as he may judge necessary to repel such invasion, and to issue his orders, for that purpose, to such officer or officers of the militia as he shall think proper. And in case of an insurrection in any state, against the government thereof, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, on application of the legislature of such state, or of the Executive, (when the legislature cannot be convened,) to call forth such number of the militia of any other state or states, as may be applied for, as he may judge sufficient to suppress such insurrection.

Your quoted phrase, "on application of the legislature of such state, or of the Executive, [/B](when the legislature cannot be convened,)" is to allow the state legislatures or executive to request help from the President; it doesn't grant them the ability to refuse orders from the President with regards to the militia.

Annenberg Classroom - Article IV Section 4

 

[Master PO]

Your quoted phrase, "on application of the legislature of such state, or of the Executive, [/B](when the legislature cannot be convened,)" is to allow the state legislatures or executive to request help from the President; it doesn't grant them the ability to refuse orders from the President with regards to the militia.

Annenberg Classroom - Article IV Section 4

ok its time master po to eat crow, you are correct the 1795 act grants the president more power to use militia without state application as did the other act.

 

[Rucker61]

ok its time master po to eat crow, you are correct the 1795 act grants the president more power to use militia without state application as did the other act.

it just more power - total power, and removes any reference to the states being allowed to refuse the President's orders.

 

[Master PO]

it just more power - total power, and removes any reference to the states being allowed to refuse the President's orders.

true, but his orders must be for what is inside the act, he cannot act at will for his own goals.

so again you were right and i was wrong

something strange though ....... why did congress pass legislation giving the president power to call out militia for rebellions in 1861 and insurrection in 1869?

 

[Visbek]

I'll work on 'the madness' part...you work on stopping the stupid.

Your arguments are ridiculous. I think you know it. You arent stupid enough to suggest the other 9 amendments are obsolete due to the 1700s understanding of 'the people'.

sigh

That wasn't my argument. You claimed that "nothing has changed," and I mentioned a few ways that your claim is ridiculously wrong. Try to pay attention next time.

The intent of the 2nd Amendment, then and now, was to ensure that the rights of the people to keep and bear military grade firearms in the defense of a free state is as real and relevant today as it was 240 years ago. Feel free to read it.

I have read it, and histories of the 2nd Amendment. That's why I find your "Red Dawn" fantasies rather amusing.

• Again, the intent was to restrict Congress (and only Congress, not the states) from preventing militias from being insufficiently armed.

• There was no distinction between "civilian" and "military grade" firearms at that time. Everyone had single-shot pistols and muskets. (Yet another change over the centuries...)

• The idea that civilian ownership of firearms helps defend the state is a laugh riot. No invading army is afraid of a bunch of fat aging Americans that whine when the cable goes out, because they have AR-15's. It is international laws and professional armies, not armed citizens, that discourage invasions.

Similarly, they don't stop dictatorships from forming, nor does the lack of civilian firearm ownership allow dictators to take over.

 

[Slavister]

In other words, you don't think we should follow your interpretation of the Constitution.

That's right. 2A outlived its usefulness due to military technological advances. Today's weapons are far beyond what was available to the Feds and the States 200+ years ago, and it would be too dangerous for each State to own weapons available to the Feds.

 

[Slavister]

The intent of the 2nd Amendment, then and now, was to ensure that the rights of the people to keep and bear military grade firearms in the defense of a free state

Yes, thank you, that was the intent. For the purpose of defending a free state from Federal Government. NOT what the OP said.

is as real and relevant today as it was 240 years ago.

No, it's not relevant today. Back then, "arms" were the same for federal government and what state militias could have. Today, Feds have nukes (and potentially other WMDs). Giving nukes to each State, let alone random "people" within states is quite dangerous and is wisely avoided.

 

[dirtpoorchris]

That's right. 2A outlived its usefulness due to military technological advances. Today's weapons are far beyond what was available to the Feds and the States 200+ years ago, and it would be too dangerous for each State to own weapons available to the Feds.

Anyone can make a gun or a crossbow (from home depot I might add) and I think nowdays rifles and handguns fall in the realm of right to defend oneself, even against other civilians. And mayyyyybe has a chance to help in a militia case where paratroopers land in our territory and our army is already taxxed. Or they could respond immediately during gang attacks.

 

[Rucker61]

That's right. 2A outlived its usefulness due to military technological advances. Today's weapons are far beyond what was available to the Feds and the States 200+ years ago, and it would be too dangerous for each State to own weapons available to the Feds.

Find a recent red/blue map of the states. Start counting red states. Stop when you get to 13.

The Second Amendment doesn't protect the arms of the militia.

 

[DebateChallenge]

No, it's not relevant today. Back then, "arms" were the same for federal government and what state militias could have. Today, Feds have nukes (and potentially other WMDs). Giving nukes to each State, let alone random "people" within states is quite dangerous and is wisely avoided.

No they had bigger weapons back then such as cannons and I believe they had black powder bombs as well. Cannons would obviously be available to the feds back then although they weren't available to states or common citizens.