The NRA.

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Simply said carrying a gun is not a right protected by the Second Amendment.

SCOTUS disagrees with you.

SCOTUS recognized the right to be armed in public for self defense as being possessed by two former slaves, then citizens, in a state in which the state militia had been disbanded by Congress -- of course being Black, these two citizens were barred from enrolling and serving an any militia.

SCOTUS characterized their right to arms, that of "bearing arms for lawful purpose", (quoting the indictment of the KKK members charged with disarming, kidnapping and lynching them), as not being granted by the 2nd Amendment thus not in any manner dependent on the Constitution for its existence. See US v Cruikshank*

SCOTUS revisited this principle just 10 years later, quoting the case above but substituting the familiar "right to keep and bear arms" for the case specific language. See Presser v Illinois

SCOTUS irrefutably equates the right of citizens --even two former slaves in 1873 Louisiana -- to be armed in public for self defense, with the pre-existing right secured in the 2nd Amendment.

I've not had one person who's been able to get anywhere close to my argument.

Well, we'll see how that goes.


* In Cruikshank since there was no militia, no state actors could be held responsible under the 14th Amendment. IOW, since the people who did the rights violation were private citizens, the Court held that there was no federal interest . . .

Yes and no.

The problem is that the Supreme Court was very mischievous.

Mostly what they did is say "here are the two arguments, as the DC side didn't say this, we're going to ignore it."

Basically Heller is open to another case coming along that changes things.

Try this.

"(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues."

So, the Supreme Court say "right to keep and carry any weapon" as if "bear arms" means "carry any weapon", but they put it in a sentence that's a negative.

They're literally saying here there isn't a right to carry arms, because in the past they've upheld concealed weapons prohibitions, but they got in "right to... carry any weapons".

"(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation."

They've upheld court cases that say "there isn't a right to carry arms", but at the same time they've done it by saying only that it doesn't refute the "individual-rights interpretation".

"(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

They also said this. The right protects the right to possess a firearm (that's the right to keep arms), but also the right to use that arm for "traditional lawful purposes".

Wait, what? How can you have a right to do something that is allowed by law? It's saying if it isn't allowed by the law any more, it's not protected.

Essentially what the Supreme Court ruled in Heller is that there is an individual right to keep arms and an individual right to bear arms.

That was the scope of the case.

What they then tried to do was to aim the "bear arms" towards being "carry arms", but they also said that this wasn't so while saying it was.

A master piece of disinformation about trying to get something in place which doesn't actually exist and they damn well know it doesn't exist either.

As for your examples, you need to state which cases they're from.

The question here is, in your first example, did they say you could use a weapon for self defense, or did they say you could use one for self defense as protected by the Second Amendment?

These are two very different things.

The Heller Court could address only the issue before it.

Consequently, the Constitutionality of the following issues, regulations, and restrictions remains unresolved:

AWBs

Waiting periods

Universal background checks

Magazine capacity restrictions

‘May issue’ concealed carry licensing

Waiting periods

Licensing/permit requirements and fees

Training requirements

And the level of appropriate judicial review when examining a firearm regulatory measure.

The lower courts have addressed the above regulations and restrictions and have consistently upheld them to be Constitutional – the Supreme Court has yet to review these issues.

Current Second Amendment jurisprudence, therefore, only prohibits the banning of handguns because Americans have overwhelmingly determined them to be the most popular means of self-defense, regardless the level of judicial review.

As long as a given jurisdiction affords its residents adequate access to firearms – handguns in particular – prohibiting the possession of specific types of firearms is Constitutionally permitted.

Of course it could only address the case before it. But it tried to do more than this. That's part of the problem.

The fact that it didn't bother to correct anyone on the meaning of "bear arms" is telling.

The meaning of ‘bear arms’ wasn’t at issue in Heller; again, the Court can only address the issue before it.

The issue before the Court was the constitutionality of the D.C. handgun ban – was there an individual or collective right to possess a firearm for lawful self-defense inside the home:

“For many years, scholars and anti-gun proponents had argued that the Second Amendment provides a right to own guns only in connection with service in a militia, and that this right should not extend to private individuals. The Heller Court rejected that line of argument. It held that the Second Amendment creates an individual right to possess a gun for self-defense, at least in the home.”

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/right-own-gun-under-heller-30295.html

Whether or not there is a right to carry a firearm outside of the home – open or concealed – was not within the purview of the Court when it reviewed the D.C. handgun ban.

Current Second Amendment jurisprudence holds that there is a right to carry concealed firearms, as determined by the lower courts; the states and local jurisdictions cannot prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms.

And the Ninth Circuit recently held that states may not ban the open carrying of firearms.

The Supreme Court has thus far refused to hear these and other cases concerning the regulation of carrying firearms outside of the home.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Just upgraded to a Lifetime Membership ......and it's worth every penny!!

You do know that the NRA supports carry and conceal permits, right?

They know if you have a permit, it's because you don't have the right.

Which means they know that there isn't a right to carry arms.

NRA-ILA | Concealed Carry | Right-to-Carry

why do I need a permit to exercise my 2nd amendment rights and not to vote? In many states I need an license to carry, but don't have to show an ID (prove who I am) in order to vote. Can you explain that? Can you be honest and admit that voter ID would hurt the dems by eliminating most fraudulent voting?

The reason why you need a permit to carry a concealed firearm in some states, and are allowed to vote in some states absent providing a certain type of ID, is because laws regulating the right to vote are subject to strict scrutiny level of judicial review; firearm regulatory measures are not.

The Supreme Court has never ruled on the required level of judicial review when examining the constitutionality of firearm regulatory measures.

Last, voter ‘fraud’ by identity is so exceedingly rare that it’s virtually nonexistent, rendering voter ‘ID’ laws meaningless and irrelevant. And that some states have no voter ‘ID’ requirement in no manner ‘benefits’ Democrats – the notion is as ignorant as it is ridiculous.

 

[Abatis]

I was doing so good, as in, I was saying what you wanted to hear. Then all of a sudden you had something you didn't want to hear.

Well, You said you weren't arguing the "militia right" or "state's right", that you recognized that the right to keep arms is an individual right secured by the 2nd which forbids the federal government from "touching them".

You then said that the right to bear arms was secured by the 2nd to protect against the maladministration of the federal government (going crazy, or bad, or mad).

But then . . . you condition the right to bear arms on militia service.

When you put into the right a government established purpose, you are granting the government power to limit the right.

No, you're misunderstanding. There is a purpose for the right, that doesn't mean it's the only reason it has a protection.

You say that your "purpose for the right" doesn't limit the protection but you then argue the opposite.

Understand, that phrasing is objectionable. The right doesn't have a constitutional purpose, it just exists because no power was granted to the government to allow it to have any interest in the personal arms of the private citizen.

You keep placing this focus on "purpose for the right" and that is profoundly wrong. This focus leads you down the rabbit hole of this need to have the 2nd Amendment tell you what a citizen is allowed to do.

Just follow SCOTUS' direction .. . The RKBA is not granted (or given or created or otherwise established) by the 2nd thus it is not in any manner dependent on the Constitution for its existence.

This "purpose for the right" error directs the core of your argument -- that bear arms only has an 'organized militia in conflict' contextual meaning which forces any other 2nd Amendment protection criteria from consideration for private citizens but "keep".

No part of the pre-existing RKBA -- including any aspect of self defense -- was conferred to the care and control of the federal government. This means that the framers of the 2nd Amendment never possessed the power to forestall the federal government's protection of self defense in public.

The 1st Amendment has reasons for being. That doesn't mean that's a limit on the protection. It just means that's the reason why it was explicitly put into the Constitution,

Exactly right but you do not place the 2nd Amendment in the same frame. For the 2nd Amendment you place the "purpose" on the right.

A "purpose for the 1st Amendment" was to protect political speech from quashing by the federal government but nobody would ever argue that romance novels were not protected with the same vigor as a newspaper editorial on policy -- either for the author or the reader.

Would you ever apply a strict "purpose for the right" onto free speech where non-political speech is not protected?

For the 2nd you create all these hoops and narrow balance beams for the right, strictly according to a "purpose for the right" you interpret from words that the right in no manner depends upon.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Just upgraded to a Lifetime Membership ......and it's worth every penny!!

You do know that the NRA supports carry and conceal permits, right?

They know if you have a permit, it's because you don't have the right.

Which means they know that there isn't a right to carry arms.

NRA-ILA | Concealed Carry | Right-to-Carry

why do I need a permit to exercise my 2nd amendment rights and not to vote? In many states I need an license to carry, but don't have to show an ID (prove who I am) in order to vote. Can you explain that? Can you be honest and admit that voter ID would hurt the dems by eliminating most fraudulent voting?

You don't need a permit for you 2nd Amendment rights. You need a permit for something you wrongly claim is your 2nd Amendment right.

then you should support voter ID, proving who you are before voting. you need an ID to collect welfare, food stamps, cash a check, collect social security, board a plane, buy booze, why not to cast a vote? who in the USA today does not have some form of ID?

This fails as a false comparison fallacy.

An ID is not required to receive public assistance because the identity of those applying is determined through online verification, a system called Numident; public assistance is applied for and received completely online, there is no face-to-face interaction at all as the benefits are issued via an EBT card.

Indeed, unlike the right to vote, there is no ‘right’ to receive public assistance, receive Social Security benefits, cash a check, board a passenger jet, or buy beer.

There is a right to vote, however; and measures that violate that right, such as some voter ‘ID’ laws, are invalidated by the courts accordingly and appropriately.

Clearly this sort of ignorance is what allows failed, wrongheaded conservative dogma to propagate.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Simply said carrying a gun is not a right protected by the Second Amendment.

SCOTUS disagrees with you.

SCOTUS recognized the right to be armed in public for self defense as being possessed by two former slaves, then citizens, in a state in which the state militia had been disbanded by Congress -- of course being Black, these two citizens were barred from enrolling and serving an any militia.

SCOTUS characterized their right to arms, that of "bearing arms for lawful purpose", (quoting the indictment of the KKK members charged with disarming, kidnapping and lynching them), as not being granted by the 2nd Amendment thus not in any manner dependent on the Constitution for its existence. See US v Cruikshank*

SCOTUS revisited this principle just 10 years later, quoting the case above but substituting the familiar "right to keep and bear arms" for the case specific language. See Presser v Illinois

SCOTUS irrefutably equates the right of citizens --even two former slaves in 1873 Louisiana -- to be armed in public for self defense, with the pre-existing right secured in the 2nd Amendment.

I've not had one person who's been able to get anywhere close to my argument.

Well, we'll see how that goes.


* In Cruikshank since there was no militia, no state actors could be held responsible under the 14th Amendment. IOW, since the people who did the rights violation were private citizens, the Court held that there was no federal interest . . .

Yes and no.

The problem is that the Supreme Court was very mischievous.

Mostly what they did is say "here are the two arguments, as the DC side didn't say this, we're going to ignore it."

Basically Heller is open to another case coming along that changes things.

Try this.

"(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues."

So, the Supreme Court say "right to keep and carry any weapon" as if "bear arms" means "carry any weapon", but they put it in a sentence that's a negative.

They're literally saying here there isn't a right to carry arms, because in the past they've upheld concealed weapons prohibitions, but they got in "right to... carry any weapons".

"(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation."

They've upheld court cases that say "there isn't a right to carry arms", but at the same time they've done it by saying only that it doesn't refute the "individual-rights interpretation".

"(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

They also said this. The right protects the right to possess a firearm (that's the right to keep arms), but also the right to use that arm for "traditional lawful purposes".

Wait, what? How can you have a right to do something that is allowed by law? It's saying if it isn't allowed by the law any more, it's not protected.

Essentially what the Supreme Court ruled in Heller is that there is an individual right to keep arms and an individual right to bear arms.

That was the scope of the case.

What they then tried to do was to aim the "bear arms" towards being "carry arms", but they also said that this wasn't so while saying it was.

A master piece of disinformation about trying to get something in place which doesn't actually exist and they damn well know it doesn't exist either.

As for your examples, you need to state which cases they're from.

The question here is, in your first example, did they say you could use a weapon for self defense, or did they say you could use one for self defense as protected by the Second Amendment?

These are two very different things.

The Heller Court could address only the issue before it.

Consequently, the Constitutionality of the following issues, regulations, and restrictions remains unresolved:

AWBs

Waiting periods

Universal background checks

Magazine capacity restrictions

‘May issue’ concealed carry licensing

Waiting periods

Licensing/permit requirements and fees

Training requirements

And the level of appropriate judicial review when examining a firearm regulatory measure.

The lower courts have addressed the above regulations and restrictions and have consistently upheld them to be Constitutional – the Supreme Court has yet to review these issues.

Current Second Amendment jurisprudence, therefore, only prohibits the banning of handguns because Americans have overwhelmingly determined them to be the most popular means of self-defense, regardless the level of judicial review.

As long as a given jurisdiction affords its residents adequate access to firearms – handguns in particular – prohibiting the possession of specific types of firearms is Constitutionally permitted.

Of course it could only address the case before it. But it tried to do more than this. That's part of the problem.

The fact that it didn't bother to correct anyone on the meaning of "bear arms" is telling.

The meaning of ‘bear arms’ wasn’t at issue in Heller; again, the Court can only address the issue before it.

The issue before the Court was the constitutionality of the D.C. handgun ban – was there an individual or collective right to possess a firearm for lawful self-defense inside the home:

“For many years, scholars and anti-gun proponents had argued that the Second Amendment provides a right to own guns only in connection with service in a militia, and that this right should not extend to private individuals. The Heller Court rejected that line of argument. It held that the Second Amendment creates an individual right to possess a gun for self-defense, at least in the home.”

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/right-own-gun-under-heller-30295.html

Whether or not there is a right to carry a firearm outside of the home – open or concealed – was not within the purview of the Court when it reviewed the D.C. handgun ban.

Current Second Amendment jurisprudence holds that there is a right to carry concealed firearms, as determined by the lower courts; the states and local jurisdictions cannot prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms.

And the Ninth Circuit recently held that states may not ban the open carrying of firearms.

The Supreme Court has thus far refused to hear these and other cases concerning the regulation of carrying firearms outside of the home.

Which is all very nice and good, if we lived in a perfect world where everyone did as they should. But we don't.

The Supreme Court majority is attempting to make "bear arms" become "carry arms".

Whether they have the authority to do so in this case or not, they made that attempt by putting things into the record that would then be precedent for further cases.

Like a run down of how they see the term "the right to bear arms", which is what they did, conveniently missing things out, misinterpreting things, etc.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I was doing so good, as in, I was saying what you wanted to hear. Then all of a sudden you had something you didn't want to hear.

Well, You said you weren't arguing the "militia right" or "state's right", that you recognized that the right to keep arms is an individual right secured by the 2nd which forbids the federal government from "touching them".

You then said that the right to bear arms was secured by the 2nd to protect against the maladministration of the federal government (going crazy, or bad, or mad).

But then . . . you condition the right to bear arms on militia service.

When you put into the right a government established purpose, you are granting the government power to limit the right.

No, you're misunderstanding. There is a purpose for the right, that doesn't mean it's the only reason it has a protection.

You say that your "purpose for the right" doesn't limit the protection but you then argue the opposite.

Understand, that phrasing is objectionable. The right doesn't have a constitutional purpose, it just exists because no power was granted to the government to allow it to have any interest in the personal arms of the private citizen.

You keep placing this focus on "purpose for the right" and that is profoundly wrong. This focus leads you down the rabbit hole of this need to have the 2nd Amendment tell you what a citizen is allowed to do.

Just follow SCOTUS' direction .. . The RKBA is not granted (or given or created or otherwise established) by the 2nd thus it is not in any manner dependent on the Constitution for its existence.

This "purpose for the right" error directs the core of your argument -- that bear arms only has an 'organized militia in conflict' contextual meaning which forces any other 2nd Amendment protection criteria from consideration for private citizens but "keep".

No part of the pre-existing RKBA -- including any aspect of self defense -- was conferred to the care and control of the federal government. This means that the framers of the 2nd Amendment never possessed the power to forestall the federal government's protection of self defense in public.

The 1st Amendment has reasons for being. That doesn't mean that's a limit on the protection. It just means that's the reason why it was explicitly put into the Constitution,

Exactly right but you do not place the 2nd Amendment in the same frame. For the 2nd Amendment you place the "purpose" on the right.

A "purpose for the 1st Amendment" was to protect political speech from quashing by the federal government but nobody would ever argue that romance novels were not protected with the same vigor as a newspaper editorial on policy -- either for the author or the reader.

Would you ever apply a strict "purpose for the right" onto free speech where non-political speech is not protected?

For the 2nd you create all these hoops and narrow balance beams for the right, strictly according to a "purpose for the right" you interpret from words that the right in no manner depends upon.

I'm not really sure where you're getting this from. Certainly not from reading what I'm writing.

The right to keep arms is the right of an individual to own weapons.

The right to bear arms is the right of an individual to be in the militia.

Individual

Actually I'll say it better. Sometimes I use shorthand to make it easier for people to understand.

The reality is, the right to keep arms is a limit on the power of the US Federal govt (and states through incorporation) to stop individuals, before due process, from owning guns. Slightly different as in the Feds could ban certain guns, certain types of arms etc from being in the hands of individuals.

The reality is the right to bear arms is a limit on the power of the US Federal govt to stop individuals being in the militia.

Now, here's the interesting thing. The Dick Act.

It created the organized and un-organized militia. Why? What's the point of creating an unorganized militia that doesn't do anything?

The simple fact of the matter is that they knew that people could demand to be in the militia and if the only available militia were the National Guard, then people could demand to be in it.

Right now they can't. "I demand my right to be in the militia, you have to let me in the militia"
"Sir, you're already in the militia, the unorganized militia. Thank you for your time."

There's no other reason for setting up the unorganized militia other than because the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia.

The right to bear arms is NOT on condition of militia service. I've said this before. You don't HAVE TO BE IN THE MILITIA to have the right to be in the militia. That makes no sense whatsoever.

"You say that your "purpose for the right" doesn't limit the protection but you then argue the opposite. "

No, I'm clearly not. You might not be understanding what I'm saying, but I'm not arguing for the opposite.

"You keep placing this focus on "purpose for the right" and that is profoundly wrong. This focus leads you down the rabbit hole of this need to have the 2nd Amendment tell you what a citizen is allowed to do. "

Sigh. I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse on this or not.

The Bill of Rights contains 8 Amendments which state what protections people get from the US Federal government. Each of these were put into the Constitution specifically for a purpose.

Firstly I quoted the Supreme Court in Heller which stated:

"But apart from that clarifying function, a prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause. "

Yet your argument is that it does. For some unknown reason.

The Bill of Rights: Its History and its Significance

"It was even suggested that the Bill of Rights might reduce liberty by giving force to the argument that all rights not specifically listed could be infringed upon. "

This is why you have the Ninth Amendment, to deal specifically with those rights they chose not to put into the Constitution.

Each of the rights in the Constitution serve a purpose. Anything that went beyond that purpose was still allowed, it didn't diminish the right, as the Supreme Court said.

The right to free speech doesn't mean that talking about Pokemon is not protected. It is. Even though it's not talk about politics, which is the main reason for putting it in in the first place.

We know this is the case because of the history of the colonies where freedom of speech was limited and the British tried to prevent freedom of speech regarding politics.

Take a look at China. What speech is banned? Pokemon or politics? Clearly the latter. Because the latter is dangerous for dictators.

There is no issue here about whether rights are granted by the Constitution or not. We both agree that the theory of rights are that rights automatically exist (because someone decided they do) and the Constitution merely protects these by preventing the govt from doing things.

"Exactly right but you do not place the 2nd Amendment in the same frame. For the 2nd Amendment you place the "purpose" on the right. "

Which is nonsense on your part.

You simply don't seem to understand what I'm talking about, or you don't want to understand.

"Would you ever apply a strict "purpose for the right" onto free speech where non-political speech is not protected? "

Wait, yes, I just did that before I read that you had written this.

 

[2aguy]

Okay, I quoted nothing of yours. I'm just going to expand.

We have two things here.

We have the history and we have the Supreme Court's view of things.

Let's look at the parts of Heller you were bitching about that I didn't talk about.

"The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose."

This is what we've spoke about before. It explains why the Amendment was put in place, but doesn't limit the latter grammatically. As I said.

"Logic demands that there be a link between the stated purpose and the command. "

"But apart from that clarifying function, a prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause. "

No, it doesn't limit it. However it doesn't also allow for fantasy.

So, imagine this "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of the free state, the right of the people to carry guns around with them shall not be infringed"

Seems disjointed.

Now we get onto the Court in Heller being a little misleading, to say the least.

" At the time of the founding, as now, to "bear" meant to "carry.""

Yes, "bear" can mean "carry". It can also mean other things

-Can't bear something
-Carry
-Give birth
-to yield crops

Definition of BEAR

"
— bear arms
1: to carry or possess arms
2: to serve as a soldier"

This dictionary uses the term "bear arms" as different from bear used without arms.

One is to carry or possess arms, the second to serve as a soldier.

"When used with "arms," however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose--confrontation."

Ah, so we have the Supreme Court saying "bear arms" means with some intent or purpose that involves using the arms for some kind of force. Whether physical force, intimidation, or just to keep the peace.

"Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of "offensive or defensive action," it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization."

Here they put in something at the end to basically say "you don't need to be in the militia to have the protection of this right"

It's gone from "offensive or defensive" action within a military context to within any context at all. Ie, self defense.

However this comes from another court case where Ginsburg basically used "bear arms" using "bear" as "carry", rather than "bear arms" together.

" From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that "bear arms" had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, "bear arms" was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. The most prominent examples are those most relevant to the Second Amendment: Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to "bear arms in defense of themselves and the state" or "bear arms in defense of himself and the state.""

Now, this is true. The problem is that each and every one of these clauses was SPECIFIC in this purpose whereas the Second Amendment WAS NOT.

The Second Amendment wrote "the right to keep and bear arms"

"bear arms in defense of themselves and the state" and "bear arms in defense of himself and the state." are specific.

However it's hard to tell in what manner they were written. I've struggled to find documents pertaining to this.

Does this mean that you have the right to defend yourself from intruders, or defend yourself from invading forces?

Remember at the time that the Native Americans were a constant threat, and that actually having to defend yourself militarily was a real thing back then.

"These provisions demonstrate--again, in the most analogous linguistic context--that "bear arms" was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia."

And here it's where they've taken a massive leap.

No, "bear arms" is not limited to the militia. You have to have the protection of the right to be in the militia otherwise the whole thing doesn't work. Imagine having to be in the militia in order to be protected to be in the militia. They could kick people out of the militia and then you'd no longer have that protection. Silly.

However they've taken two things, "carry arms" instead of "militia duty" "render military service" etc, and then said something true on top of something that is false.

"The phrase "bear Arms" also had at the time of the founding an idiomatic meaning that was significantly different from its natural meaning: "to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight" or "to wage war.""

This is where the Supreme Court gets confusing. They're basically saying "we know what this means, but fuck it, we're going to go off the rails and say stuff that isn't true because we can."

"But it unequivocally bore that idiomatic meaning only when followed by the preposition "against," "

I disagree. The document I presented before does not use "bear arms" + "against" to mean "militia duty" and "render military service.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution


Also the different versions of what would become the Second Amendment also do not use "against" with "bear arms" even when they use "render military service" synonymously with "bear arms".

"Every example given by petitioners' amici for the idiomatic meaning of "bear arms" from the founding period either includes the preposition "against" or is not clearly idiomatic."

Here's the problem, willful ignorance. At times the Supreme Court has presented historical data willingly. Here they have refused to supply their own and simply said "well, the petitioners didn't say anything like this, therefore we're going to pretend it didn't happen.

"Giving "bear Arms" its idiomatic meaning would cause the protected right to consist of the right to be a soldier or to wage war--an absurdity that no commentator has ever endorsed."

Which again is a complete and UTTER LIE. I have the FOUNDING FATHERS saying this. Not just one either. And them saying this in the House.

The Supreme Court is deliberately misleading, ignoring history and FACT in order to make a case that is wrong.

" Worse still, the phrase "keep and bear Arms" would be incoherent. The word "Arms" would have two different meanings at once: "weapons" (as the object of "keep") and (as the object of "bear") one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying "He filled and kicked the bucket" to mean "He filled the bucket and died." Grotesque."

This is just ridiculous. I mean, to "kick the bucket" has nothing to do with buckets. To "bear arms" comes from carry + arms but in the sense of a duty.

They make the case that "bear arms" could be used outside of military context.

The Supreme Court quoted this

What Did "Bear Arms" Mean in the Second Amendment? by Clayton E. Cramer, Joseph Edward Olson :: SSRN

"Previous scholarly examination of the phrase “bear arms” in English language documents published around the time of the Constitution does show almost entirely military uses or contexts."

"If you look in databases consisting almost entirely of government documents, it should not be a surprise that most of the uses will be governmental in nature. "

Wait, what? We're discussing a document, the Constitution, which is about the government. The Second Amendment is a limit on the government. And he's saying most of the meanings of "bear arms" in relation to the government mean "militia duty" and "render military service" as does the House document discussing the future Second Amendment.

"Searching more comprehensive collections of English language works published before 1820 shows that there are a number of uses that are clearly individual, and have nothing to do with military service. "

"The Framers’ generation used “bear arms” in both civilian and military contexts. "

"[A]nd, if, within twelve months after the date of the recognizance he shall bear a gun"

Which isn't "bear arms" but "bear a gun". Irrelevant.

" “The right of the citizens to bear arms in the defence of themselves shall not be questioned.”"

We go back to a specific thing "in defence of themselves" which is vague at best.

Basically the Supreme Court has used a very long winded account of how "bear arms" doesn't have to mean "militia duty" or "render military service" but really doesn't find one example of "a right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" or something similar without something coming in after, which does not mean "render military service" or "militia duty".

It's an age old tactic of presenting a shit load of data and trying to make people believe you when you've actually presented nothing that is actually relevant.

The simple fact is, when used in the manner it was used in in the Second Amendment, it almost always (I say this because I can't confirm "always") refers to "render military service" or "militia duty".

The Supreme Court is being deliberately misleading on this. They know better. But they know what they want too. And they have limits on what they'll say, they'll not say things too directly, but they'll get away with saying stuff that is just plain wrong at the same time.

A lot of typing to lie about a basic Right.....

From Heller....

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individualrights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.
----

Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.” We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans. b. “Keep and bear Arms.” We move now from the holder of the right—“the people”—to the substance of the right: “to keep and bear Arms.” Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object: “Arms.” The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.” 1 Dictionary of the English Language 107 (4th ed.) (hereinafter Johnson). Timothy Cunningham’s important 1771 legal dictionary defined “arms” as “any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.” 1 A New and Complete Law Dictionary (1771); see also N. Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) (reprinted 1989) (hereinafter Webster) (similar).
--------

At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989) (hereinafter Oxford). When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose— confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” Id., at 143 (dissenting opinion)

-----

(quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 214 (6th ed. 1998)). We think that JUSTICE GINSBURG accurately captured the natural meaning of “bear arms.” Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of “offensive or defensive action,” it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization. From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that “bear arms” had in the 18th century.

In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. The most prominent examples are those most relevant to the Second Amendment: Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” or “bear arms in defense of himself and the state.” 8 It is clear from those formulations that “bear arms” did not refer only to carry
-----

ing a weapon in an organized military unit. Justice James Wilson interpreted the Pennsylvania Constitution’s armsbearing right, for example, as a recognition of the natural right of defense “of one’s person or house”—what he called the law of “self preservation.” 2 Collected Works of James Wilson 1142, and n. x (K. Hall & M. Hall eds. 2007) (citing Pa. Const., Art. IX, §21 (1790)); see also T. Walker, Introduction to American Law 198 (1837) (“Thus the right of self-defence [is] guaranteed by the [Ohio] constitution”); see also id., at 157 (equating Second Amendment with that provision of the Ohio Constitution). That was also the interpretation of those state constitutional provisions adopted by pre-Civil War state courts.9

These provisions demonstrate—again, in the most analogous linguistic context—that “bear arms” was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia.

The phrase “bear Arms” also had at the time of the founding an idiomatic meaning that was significantly different from its natural meaning: “to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight” or “to wage war.” See Linguists’ Brief 18; post, at 11 (STEVENS, J., dissenting). But it unequivocally bore that idiomatic meaning only when followed by the preposition “against,” which was in turn followed by the target of the hostilities. See 2 Oxford 21. (That is how, for example, our Declaration of Independence ¶28, used the phrase: “He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country . . . .”) Every example given by petitioners’ amici for the idiomatic meaning of “bear arms”
---

In any event, the meaning of “bear arms” that petitioners and JUSTICE STEVENS propose is not even the (sometimes) idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a hybrid definition, whereby “bear arms” connotes the actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia. No dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried that meaning at the time of the founding. But it is easy to see why petitioners and the dissent are driven to the hybrid definition. Giving “bear Arms” its idiomatic meaning would cause the protected right to consist of the right to be a soldier or to wage war—an absurdity that no commentator has ever endorsed. See L. Levy, Origins of the Bill of Rights 135 (1999). Worse still, the phrase “keep and bear Arms” would be incoherent. The word “Arms” would have two different meanings at once: “weapons” (as the object of “keep”) and (as the object of “bear”) one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying “He filled and kicked the bucket” to mean “He filled the bucket and died.” Grotesque. Petitioners justify their limitation of “bear arms” to the military context by pointing out the unremarkable fact that it was often used in that context—the same mistake they made with respect to “keep arms.” It is especially unremarkable that the phrase was often used in a military context in the federal legal sources (such as records of congressional debate) that have been the focus of petitioners’ inquiry. Those sources would have had little occasion to use it except in discussions about the standing army and the militia. And the phrases used primarily in those military discussions include not only “bear arms” but also “carry arms,” “possess arms,” and “have arms”—though no one thinks that those other phrases also had special military meanings. See Barnett, Was the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Conditioned on Service in an Organized Militia?, 83 Tex. L. Rev. 237, 261 (2004). The common references to those “fit to bear arms” in congressional discussions about the militia are matched by use of the same phrase in the few nonmilitary federal contexts where the concept would be relevant. See, e.g., 30 Journals of Continental Congress 349–351 (J. Fitzpatrick ed. 1934). Other legal sources frequently used “bear arms” in nonmilitary contexts.10 Cunningham’s legal dictionary, cited above
----

And if one looks beyond legal sources, “bear arms” was frequently used in nonmilitary contexts. See Cramer & Olson, What Did “Bear Arms” Mean in the Second Amendment?, 6 Georgetown J. L. & Pub. Pol’y (forthcoming Sept. 2008), online at What Did "Bear Arms" Mean in the Second Amendment? by Clayton E. Cramer, Joseph Edward Olson :: SSRN (as visited June 24, 2008, and available in Clerk of Court’s case file) (identifying numerous nonmilitary uses of “bear arms” from the founding period). JUSTICE STEVENS points to a study by amici supposedly showing that the phrase “bear arms” was most frequently used in the military context. See post, at 12–13, n. 9; Linguists’ Brief 24. Of course, as we have said, the fact that the phrase was commonly used in a particular context does not show that it is limited to that context, and, in any event, we have given many sources where the phrase was used in nonmilitary contexts. Moreover, the study’s collection appears to include (who knows how many times) the idiomatic phrase “bear arms against,” which is irrelevant. The amici also dismiss examples such as “‘bear arms . . . for the purpose of killing game’” because those uses are “expressly qualified.” Linguists’ Brief 24. (JUSTICE STEVENS uses the same excuse for dismissing the state constitutional provisions analogous to the Second Amendment that identify private-use purposes for which the individual right can be asserted. See post, at 12.) That analysis is faulty. A purposive qualifying phrase that contradicts the word or phrase it modifies is unknown this side of the looking glass (except, apparently, in some courses on Linguistics). If “bear arms” means, as we think, simply the carrying of arms, a modifier can limit the purpose of the carriage (“for the purpose of selfdefense” or “to make war against the King”). But if “bear arms” means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply cannot add “for the purpose of killing game.”

The right “to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game” is worthy of the mad hatter.

Thus, these purposive qualifying phrases positively establish that “to bear arms” is not limited to military use.11
----

In a 1780 debate in the House of Lords, for example, Lord Richmond described an order to disarm private citizens (not militia members) as “a violation of the constitutional right of Protestant subjects to keep and bear arms for their own defense.” 49 The London Magazine or Gentleman’s Monthly Intelligencer 467 (1780). In response, another member of Parliament referred to “the right of bearing arms for personal defence,” making clear that no special military meaning for “keep and bear arms” was intended in the discussion. Id., at 467–468.15
----

c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment.
--------
Americans understood the “right of self-preservation” as permitting a citizen to “repe[l] force by force” when “the intervention of society in his behalf, may be too late to prevent an injury.”
------

There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.

 

[Abatis]

The right to keep arms is the right of an individual to own weapons.

The right to bear arms is the right of an individual to be in the militia.

There are no "militia rights" to be found or claimed under the 2nd Amendment. There is no right for citizens to "be in the militia" nor is there any right for citizens to form their own militia, independent of law.

From Presser, on the "right" to form a militia and the degre of governmental control over the enrolled body:

"The right voluntarily to associate together as a military company or organization, or to drill or parade with arms, without, and independent of, an act of congress or law of the state authorizing the same, is not an attribute of national citizenship. Military organization and military drill and parade under arms are subjects especially under the control of the government of every country. They cannot be claimed as a right independent of law. Under our political system they are subject to the regulation and control of the state and federal governments, acting in due regard to their respective prerogatives and powers. The constitution and laws of the United States will be searched in vain for any support to the view that these rights are privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States independent of some specific legislation on the subject."​

Organized militia establishment, formation and control is entirely the domain of Congress and that power is supreme and preemptive for states and the people (for as long as the Constitution is in force). Congress can dictate precisely who is in the militia and they can exclude whomever they wish. Origianlly it was White men, now it is no citizen unless they formally enlist in the NG. Your premise is without support in the philosophical foundation or legal operation of the Constitution.

The reality is the right to bear arms is a limit on the power of the US Federal govt to stop individuals being in the militia.

The federal government was granted complete control over who shall be "in the militia". They can limit membership to whomever they desire with either specific language (e.g., White men) or by making no allowance at all for regular citizens, absolving them of any militia obligation (Dick Act).

The simple fact of the matter is that they knew that people could demand to be in the militia and if the only available militia were the National Guard, then people could demand to be in it.

Right now they can't. "I demand my right to be in the militia, you have to let me in the militia"
"Sir, you're already in the militia, the unorganized militia. Thank you for your time."

LOL. Again, the "unorganized militia" did not need to be created by Congress, it has always existed and continues to exist. The general militia is a foundational, inseparable principle of our Republic. All that is required for "membership" in this militia is an individual being capable of bearing arms and acting in concert.

Presser tells us:

"It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, . . . "​

Your premise and position that the unorganized militia needed any allowance in law, is absurd and ridiculous (or even worse, that the "right" to belong in the unorganized militia was established in, or is somehow reliant upon, the 2nd Amendment).

The Bill of Rights contains 8 Amendments which state what protections people get from the US Federal government. Each of these were put into the Constitution specifically for a purpose.

Absolutely true; each provision had an "object", an intent. The object of the 2nd Amendment was the perpetuation of the general militia principle. That didn't need to be created nor did any existing legitimate federal power need to be restrained . . . Any action against the principle is illegitimate and cause for the people to exercise their original right to come together and rescind their consent to be governed.

The people got and get NOTHING from the 2nd Amendment that they didn't possess on December 14, 1791. The 2nd Amendment doesn't 'do" anything but redundantly forbid the federal government to exercise powers it was never granted.

You simply don't seem to understand what I'm talking about, or you don't want to understand.

I understand everything you are saying; it's just that I recognize how absurd it is.



*

​

 

[Redfish]

Just upgraded to a Lifetime Membership ......and it's worth every penny!!

You do know that the NRA supports carry and conceal permits, right?

They know if you have a permit, it's because you don't have the right.

Which means they know that there isn't a right to carry arms.

NRA-ILA | Concealed Carry | Right-to-Carry

why do I need a permit to exercise my 2nd amendment rights and not to vote? In many states I need an license to carry, but don't have to show an ID (prove who I am) in order to vote. Can you explain that? Can you be honest and admit that voter ID would hurt the dems by eliminating most fraudulent voting?

The reason why you need a permit to carry a concealed firearm in some states, and are allowed to vote in some states absent providing a certain type of ID, is because laws regulating the right to vote are subject to strict scrutiny level of judicial review; firearm regulatory measures are not.

The Supreme Court has never ruled on the required level of judicial review when examining the constitutionality of firearm regulatory measures.

Last, voter ‘fraud’ by identity is so exceedingly rare that it’s virtually nonexistent, rendering voter ‘ID’ laws meaningless and irrelevant. And that some states have no voter ‘ID’ requirement in no manner ‘benefits’ Democrats – the notion is as ignorant as it is ridiculous.

If voter fraud is so very rare, why are democrats and liberals so strongly opposed to showing an ID before casting your vote. We all know the answer, because they want the option of stuffing ballot boxes with fake votes in close elections. Why cant you admit that fact?

 

[Redfish]

SCOTUS disagrees with you.

SCOTUS recognized the right to be armed in public for self defense as being possessed by two former slaves, then citizens, in a state in which the state militia had been disbanded by Congress -- of course being Black, these two citizens were barred from enrolling and serving an any militia.

SCOTUS characterized their right to arms, that of "bearing arms for lawful purpose", (quoting the indictment of the KKK members charged with disarming, kidnapping and lynching them), as not being granted by the 2nd Amendment thus not in any manner dependent on the Constitution for its existence. See US v Cruikshank*

SCOTUS revisited this principle just 10 years later, quoting the case above but substituting the familiar "right to keep and bear arms" for the case specific language. See Presser v Illinois

SCOTUS irrefutably equates the right of citizens --even two former slaves in 1873 Louisiana -- to be armed in public for self defense, with the pre-existing right secured in the 2nd Amendment.

Well, we'll see how that goes.


* In Cruikshank since there was no militia, no state actors could be held responsible under the 14th Amendment. IOW, since the people who did the rights violation were private citizens, the Court held that there was no federal interest . . .

Yes and no.

The problem is that the Supreme Court was very mischievous.

Mostly what they did is say "here are the two arguments, as the DC side didn't say this, we're going to ignore it."

Basically Heller is open to another case coming along that changes things.

Try this.

"(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues."

So, the Supreme Court say "right to keep and carry any weapon" as if "bear arms" means "carry any weapon", but they put it in a sentence that's a negative.

They're literally saying here there isn't a right to carry arms, because in the past they've upheld concealed weapons prohibitions, but they got in "right to... carry any weapons".

"(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation."

They've upheld court cases that say "there isn't a right to carry arms", but at the same time they've done it by saying only that it doesn't refute the "individual-rights interpretation".

"(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

They also said this. The right protects the right to possess a firearm (that's the right to keep arms), but also the right to use that arm for "traditional lawful purposes".

Wait, what? How can you have a right to do something that is allowed by law? It's saying if it isn't allowed by the law any more, it's not protected.

Essentially what the Supreme Court ruled in Heller is that there is an individual right to keep arms and an individual right to bear arms.

That was the scope of the case.

What they then tried to do was to aim the "bear arms" towards being "carry arms", but they also said that this wasn't so while saying it was.

A master piece of disinformation about trying to get something in place which doesn't actually exist and they damn well know it doesn't exist either.

As for your examples, you need to state which cases they're from.

The question here is, in your first example, did they say you could use a weapon for self defense, or did they say you could use one for self defense as protected by the Second Amendment?

These are two very different things.

The Heller Court could address only the issue before it.

Consequently, the Constitutionality of the following issues, regulations, and restrictions remains unresolved:

AWBs

Waiting periods

Universal background checks

Magazine capacity restrictions

‘May issue’ concealed carry licensing

Waiting periods

Licensing/permit requirements and fees

Training requirements

And the level of appropriate judicial review when examining a firearm regulatory measure.

The lower courts have addressed the above regulations and restrictions and have consistently upheld them to be Constitutional – the Supreme Court has yet to review these issues.

Current Second Amendment jurisprudence, therefore, only prohibits the banning of handguns because Americans have overwhelmingly determined them to be the most popular means of self-defense, regardless the level of judicial review.

As long as a given jurisdiction affords its residents adequate access to firearms – handguns in particular – prohibiting the possession of specific types of firearms is Constitutionally permitted.

Of course it could only address the case before it. But it tried to do more than this. That's part of the problem.

The fact that it didn't bother to correct anyone on the meaning of "bear arms" is telling.

The meaning of ‘bear arms’ wasn’t at issue in Heller; again, the Court can only address the issue before it.

The issue before the Court was the constitutionality of the D.C. handgun ban – was there an individual or collective right to possess a firearm for lawful self-defense inside the home:

“For many years, scholars and anti-gun proponents had argued that the Second Amendment provides a right to own guns only in connection with service in a militia, and that this right should not extend to private individuals. The Heller Court rejected that line of argument. It held that the Second Amendment creates an individual right to possess a gun for self-defense, at least in the home.”

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/right-own-gun-under-heller-30295.html

Whether or not there is a right to carry a firearm outside of the home – open or concealed – was not within the purview of the Court when it reviewed the D.C. handgun ban.

Current Second Amendment jurisprudence holds that there is a right to carry concealed firearms, as determined by the lower courts; the states and local jurisdictions cannot prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms.

And the Ninth Circuit recently held that states may not ban the open carrying of firearms.

The Supreme Court has thus far refused to hear these and other cases concerning the regulation of carrying firearms outside of the home.

Which is all very nice and good, if we lived in a perfect world where everyone did as they should. But we don't.

The Supreme Court majority is attempting to make "bear arms" become "carry arms".

Whether they have the authority to do so in this case or not, they made that attempt by putting things into the record that would then be precedent for further cases.

Like a run down of how they see the term "the right to bear arms", which is what they did, conveniently missing things out, misinterpreting things, etc.

If carrying arms was banned, only criminals and government would be carrying arms. Can you say Third Reich?

 

[frigidweirdo]

The right to keep arms is the right of an individual to own weapons.

The right to bear arms is the right of an individual to be in the militia.

There are no "militia rights" to be found or claimed under the 2nd Amendment. There is no right for citizens to "be in the militia" nor is there any right for citizens to form their own militia, independent of law.

From Presser, on the "right" to form a militia and the degre of governmental control over the enrolled body:

"The right voluntarily to associate together as a military company or organization, or to drill or parade with arms, without, and independent of, an act of congress or law of the state authorizing the same, is not an attribute of national citizenship. Military organization and military drill and parade under arms are subjects especially under the control of the government of every country. They cannot be claimed as a right independent of law. Under our political system they are subject to the regulation and control of the state and federal governments, acting in due regard to their respective prerogatives and powers. The constitution and laws of the United States will be searched in vain for any support to the view that these rights are privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States independent of some specific legislation on the subject."​

Organized militia establishment, formation and control is entirely the domain of Congress and that power is supreme and preemptive for states and the people (for as long as the Constitution is in force). Congress can dictate precisely who is in the militia and they can exclude whomever they wish. Origianlly it was White men, now it is no citizen unless they formally enlist in the NG. Your premise is without support in the philosophical foundation or legal operation of the Constitution.

The reality is the right to bear arms is a limit on the power of the US Federal govt to stop individuals being in the militia.

The federal government was granted complete control over who shall be "in the militia". They can limit membership to whomever they desire with either specific language (e.g., White men) or by making no allowance at all for regular citizens, absolving them of any militia obligation (Dick Act).

The simple fact of the matter is that they knew that people could demand to be in the militia and if the only available militia were the National Guard, then people could demand to be in it.

Right now they can't. "I demand my right to be in the militia, you have to let me in the militia"
"Sir, you're already in the militia, the unorganized militia. Thank you for your time."

LOL. Again, the "unorganized militia" did not need to be created by Congress, it has always existed and continues to exist. The general militia is a foundational, inseparable principle of our Republic. All that is required for "membership" in this militia is an individual being capable of bearing arms and acting in concert.

Presser tells us:

"It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, . . . "​

Your premise and position that the unorganized militia needed any allowance in law, is absurd and ridiculous (or even worse, that the "right" to belong in the unorganized militia was established in, or is somehow reliant upon, the 2nd Amendment).

The Bill of Rights contains 8 Amendments which state what protections people get from the US Federal government. Each of these were put into the Constitution specifically for a purpose.

Absolutely true; each provision had an "object", an intent. The object of the 2nd Amendment was the perpetuation of the general militia principle. That didn't need to be created nor did any existing legitimate federal power need to be restrained . . . Any action against the principle is illegitimate and cause for the people to exercise their original right to come together and rescind their consent to be governed.

The people got and get NOTHING from the 2nd Amendment that they didn't possess on December 14, 1791. The 2nd Amendment doesn't 'do" anything but redundantly forbid the federal government to exercise powers it was never granted.

You simply don't seem to understand what I'm talking about, or you don't want to understand.

I understand everything you are saying; it's just that I recognize how absurd it is.



*

​

Frigidweirdo goes looking for any sign of "militia rights" being spoke, looks bemused sits down.

What the fuck dude?

As for there being no right to be in the militia. Who says? You?

Well Mr Gerry has something rather different to say about that.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

You may read it at your pleasure. Take special note of what Mr Gerry had to say.

The militia is the ultimate check and balance. Freedom of speech and press are there to stop the shit hitting the fan, but when the shit has hit the fan, the only thing left is the militia.

The militia needs TWO THINGS, arms and personnel to use those arms.

How do you protect the militia? Mr Gerry thought it was pretty damn important to protect the militia. In fact, when talking about the SECOND AMENDMENT he went off on one talking about the militia. Which is pretty fucking funny because you think he was talk about walking around with guns so you could shoot up some bottles that might just be attacking your ass.

Just to correct your view of what the militia was back in the day.

The militia COULD BE under Federal control. Certainly the feds put a Militia Act in place from 1792 onwards.

Congress had the power to organize, arm and discipline the militia. This doesn't mean that it did do these things.

The first Militia Act 1792 allowed the President to call up the Militia "whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe" and "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"

And that was it. Not all the time. In fact it'd have been pretty damn hard to keep a militia together in the 1700s for long periods of time.

The second Militia Act of 1792 had the militia made up of all men aged 18-45 who was white and these men were expected to have their own rifles. So, the feds actually armed the militia by telling men to get their own damn rifles.

Discipline would be carried out by the officers the states appointed, as stated in the Constitution. The states decided how men would be divided up into divisions etc.

Congress could not decide who was in the militia at all. Back to Mr Gerry.

"Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

Now, remember, this is the "bearing arms" that was "bear arms" in some versions of the future Second Amendment and "render military service in person" in others.

Here, the evidence.

June 8th 1789

but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

August 17th 1789

but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.

August 24th 1789

but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

August 25th 1789

but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.

September 4th

This clause had been deleted from the future amendment by September 4th.

No, you're right, the unorganized militia did not need to be created. But it was. Why?

No, it did not always exist. This is just an invention of yours. The Militia Act of 1792 and every militia act up until the Dick Act said who was automatically in the militia.

The Dick Act made two different Militias. Why?

Presser tells you what? Nothing much.

The reality was at this period of time, that the government saw the militia as being inept at doing what it needed to do. They wanted to do away with a totally unprofessional militia that kept getting its ass kicked.

So they made the National Guard. The National Guard is, to all extent, the Militia as stated in the Constitution.

So you have a militia. Why make another one?

"Your premise and position that the unorganized militia needed any allowance in law, is absurd and ridiculous "

Yeah, so fucking ridiculous, except that they MADE THE DAMN UNORGANIZED MILITIA and have done absolutely NOTHING with it for more than 110 years. Right.....

So, come on there, let's hear your view as to why the Unorganized militia was made.

The point of the 2A is to find out what the Feds can and cannot do. Now, you're saying there's a right to walk around with your gun and the Feds can't stop you. Only that the law in this day and age allows people to stop you walking around with your gun.

Doesn't add up, does it?

"I understand everything you are saying; it's just that I recognize how absurd it is."

Bullshit.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

What the Court said is that the right to bear arms for lawful purpose (self defense in public) is not granted by the 2nd Amendment. So, if you are looking for "two different things", the Court is saying the RKBA and the 2nd Amendment are two very different things.

I'm hoping you clarify something for me. Your first paragraph above, and your last paragraph, below seem to contradict each other although it could just be that I'm simply not understanding any of this. If the SCOTUS has ruled that the 2nd amendment does not protect the right to "[keep and] bear arms" which is clearly stated in the amendment itself, then what right does the 2nd protect and in light of this how did you arrive at the equation below?

So, the right of the people to keep and bear arms = bearing arms for a lawful purpose = carrying guns for self defense in public.

 

[2aguy]

What the Court said is that the right to bear arms for lawful purpose (self defense in public) is not granted by the 2nd Amendment. So, if you are looking for "two different things", the Court is saying the RKBA and the 2nd Amendment are two very different things.

I'm hoping you clarify something for me. Your first paragraph above, and your last paragraph, below seem to contradict each other although it could just be that I'm simply not understanding any of this. If the SCOTUS has ruled that the 2nd amendment does not protect the right to "[keep and] bear arms" which is clearly stated in the amendment itself, then what right does the 2nd protect and in light of this how did you arrive at the equation below?

So, the right of the people to keep and bear arms = bearing arms for a lawful purpose = carrying guns for self defense in public.

I might help here..... The 2nd Amendment doesn't grant a Right, what it does is list the Right. If you read D.C. v Heller, it specifically points out that the Right to keep and bear arms predates the creation of the Constitution, and is not dependent on the Constitution to exist. The Right to keep and bear arms already exists for individuals... it is a Right with or without the Constitution.

From Heller citing Cruickshank...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Page 19.....

A pre exisitng right

We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right.

The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.”

As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed . . . .”16
-----

Page 21...

Thus, the right secured in 1689 as a result of the Stuarts’ abuses was by the time of the founding understood to be an individual right protecting against both public and private violence.

I hope this helps...

 

[Timmy]

NRA is our if control .

Better to become a member of your local state gun rights group .

 

[2aguy]

NRA is our if control .

Better to become a member of your local state gun rights group .

How is it out of control? Please, enlighten us.

 

[Taz]

Just upgraded to a Lifetime Membership ......and it's worth every penny!!

What do you get out of it? The right to pay them money. Anything else?

 

[2aguy]

Just upgraded to a Lifetime Membership ......and it's worth every penny!!

What do you get out of it? The right to pay them money. Anything else?

It gives them power to tell politicians not to infringe on the Right to keep and bear arms.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

I hope this helps...

Your first paragraph explained it perfectly. So to recap, the right to defend one's life is a human right that exists sans any legislation and the purpose of the 2nd is to acknowledge this pre-existing right and to prohibit the government (or Congress) from infringing upon the right of "the people' to keep & bear arms?

 

[Rustic]

Just upgraded to a Lifetime Membership ......and it's worth every penny!!

You do know that the NRA supports carry and conceal permits, right?

They know if you have a permit, it's because you don't have the right.

Which means they know that there isn't a right to carry arms.

NRA-ILA | Concealed Carry | Right-to-Carry

why do I need a permit to exercise my 2nd amendment rights and not to vote? In many states I need an license to carry, but don't have to show an ID (prove who I am) in order to vote. Can you explain that? Can you be honest and admit that voter ID would hurt the dems by eliminating most fraudulent voting?

You don't need a permit for you 2nd Amendment rights. You need a permit for something you wrongly claim is your 2nd Amendment right.

then you should support voter ID, proving who you are before voting. you need an ID to collect welfare, food stamps, cash a check, collect social security, board a plane, buy booze, why not to cast a vote? who in the USA today does not have some form of ID?

This fails as a false comparison fallacy.

An ID is not required to receive public assistance because the identity of those applying is determined through online verification, a system called Numident; public assistance is applied for and received completely online, there is no face-to-face interaction at all as the benefits are issued via an EBT card.

Indeed, unlike the right to vote, there is no ‘right’ to receive public assistance, receive Social Security benefits, cash a check, board a passenger jet, or buy beer.

There is a right to vote, however; and measures that violate that right, such as some voter ‘ID’ laws, are invalidated by the courts accordingly and appropriately.

Clearly this sort of ignorance is what allows failed, wrongheaded conservative dogma to propagate.

Na, not really

 

[Rustic]

Just upgraded to a Lifetime Membership ......and it's worth every penny!!

What do you get out of it? The right to pay them money. Anything else?

This is a better organization

Home