The Right To Bear Arms

[emilynghiem]

Time for reasonable gun control. Also time to update the confusing and obsolete 2nd Amendment.

Time for you to leave the U.S. Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

That ain't how it works, sparky. We use the ballot box and laws.

That we do, dunce boy and the ballot box is why the GOP controls the executive and legislative branches of government.

And when Republicans attempt to violate the rights and protected liberties of the Americans people, those disadvantaged seek relief in court, subject solely to the rule of law, not the ignorance, hate, fear, and bigotry of Republicans.

"Republicans attempt to violate the rights of the people". When, precisely, would that be? Could you cite an example? Would help even more if your cited example wasn't of the left's most cherished right of being an unmitigated jackass whenever and wherever they please.

Not saying you don't have the right to be an asshole. Just suggesting that maybe that's not the one you should exercise and defend the most vigorously.

Dear Cecilie1200

1. Republicans in Tennessee sought to ban Mosques, which was discrimination against Muslims not treated equally as Christians under Constitutional laws. (Democrats similarly push to ban the choice of reparative therapy, and don't treat ex-gay and LGBT beliefs equally but discriminate against ex-gays while complaining about discrimination against transgender as a minority)

2. Republicans voted and defended unconstitutional bans on same sex marriage, that led to the opposite backlash and equal unconstitutional move to endorse and establish the right to marriage. BOTH involve faith based beliefs and biases regarding "marriage"; where NEITHER should be decided by govt but left to the people's free choice of beliefs.

3. Republicans continue to push prolife views and policies through govt, in violation of the equal protection of prochoice beliefs. While Democrats continue to do the same pushing right to health care through govt, in violation of Constitutional beliefs in free market choices that govt is not authorized to coerce people into under threat of penalty.
Both are unconstitutional.

 

[westwall]

This just shows how fucked up right wing logic is.

Hillary says she doesn't like guns. But in the US there are guns, and as long as there are guns important people need to be protected by people with guns.

I don't like guns. I went to South Africa and I bought pepper spray. However if I lived in South Africa (you'd have to make me, kicking and screaming) I'd buy a gun because this is the only way I'd feel safe.

However I prefer to live in places where I DON'T NEED A GUN.

Hillary having to be surrounded by armed people might be one reason why she doesn't like guns.

Or probably better said, she's the eternal politician and she'll take the policies she thinks will make her win. But that's a different matter.

Um, her position is a little more than simply "not liking guns." And why should only "important" people be protected? That statement shows the hypocrisy of liberals who talk about "equality." All people are equal, so I hope you're not actually saying that only important people (i.e. your dear leaders) deserve protection.

Pure idiocy.

No one is advocating that only important people be protected; consequently there is no ‘hypocrisy’ of liberals concerning equality.

Liberals support current Second Amendment jurisprudence, take no issue with citizens lawfully possessing firearms, and acknowledge the right of citizens to engage in lawful self-defense.

Indeed, it’s conservatives who are hostile to current Second Amendment jurisprudence, claiming that the Second Amendment is ‘unlimited,’ when the Heller Court reaffirmed that it is not, arguing that there should be no restrictions on possessing firearms although the courts have upheld those restrictions as Constitutional, and opposing firearm regulatory measures the Supreme Court has never ruled to be in violation of the Second Amendment.

Advocating for? No, probably not. But that would be the de facto consequence.

 

[sakinago]

Ok but the amount of guns and gun owners has been practically been going up exponentially in the past 10-15, and crime keeps going down and down and down. This includes gun crimes. And if guns were the problem, then why is Switzerland the safest place on the planet, yet they are issued full auto assault rifles?

The only thing that risen (crime wise) in America is mass shootings. Guns have been around since our inception...so obviously there is something else culturally that is going on. There was practically zilch up until the UT shooter (who had a brain tumor pressing up against his aggression center, knew something was off, but couldn’t stop himself). After that it was pretty sparse until columbine, then there was a trickle of mass shootings. Now they are sadly not too uncommon. I don’t know if I have every single answer to why mass shootings are on the rise, but I do think a big factor is the notariaty involved in these shootings have attracted people who find that desirable and wish to one up the previous guy. Clearly they have mental health issues, but there something else going on to. There’s a clear lack of appreciation of life, graphic violence is everywhere in our culture. Video games the walking dead, every other movie, HBO, and even network television. It’s everywhere. I’m not saying we’re all slowly turning into killers or that we need to shut it down. But clearly some cannot separate what’s reality and what’s fictional.

Although I agree that we live in a sick culture that glorifies violence… I don't believe that that is why we're having mass shootings. There is a concerted effort to get the public to fear and hate guns, and to willingly give up our rights. Look into the Hegelian dialectic, or problem – reaction – solution. It is also legal now to propagandize the public. Watch this video:

Nonsense.

There is no ‘effort’ – ‘concerted’ or otherwise – to get the public to fear and hate guns, the notion is ridiculous, delusional, and dishonest.

There absolutely is. Look at the verbage used. 8 years ago the news called it a handgun...now they call it a semi-automatic gun. And since plenty of non owners don’t know what that actually means, it sounds a lot scarier than just handgun which everyone knows what that is. But they hear semi automatic and think Uzi. And look at the whole very severe punishments in school for finger guns, or LEGO guns, or anything resembling a gun. Obviously those punishements DO NOT fit the crime, what they do is to teach kids to be afraid of guns.

 

[danielpalos]

Well regulated militia are declared Necessary to the security of a free State.

The People are the militia.

You are either well regulated or not.

No one is unconnected with the militia.

Then they would not have included the phrase the people. The well regulated line is a qualifier to the following line, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

The People are the militia. The qualifier is what is necessary to the security of a free State.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Disarm the military and I will accept the arbitrary infringement of my natural right to a motherfucking machine gun. Until then....


fuck off, commies!!!

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Ok but the amount of guns and gun owners has been practically been going up exponentially in the past 10-15, and crime keeps going down and down and down. This includes gun crimes. And if guns were the problem, then why is Switzerland the safest place on the planet, yet they are issued full auto assault rifles?

The only thing that risen (crime wise) in America is mass shootings. Guns have been around since our inception...so obviously there is something else culturally that is going on. There was practically zilch up until the UT shooter (who had a brain tumor pressing up against his aggression center, knew something was off, but couldn’t stop himself). After that it was pretty sparse until columbine, then there was a trickle of mass shootings. Now they are sadly not too uncommon. I don’t know if I have every single answer to why mass shootings are on the rise, but I do think a big factor is the notariaty involved in these shootings have attracted people who find that desirable and wish to one up the previous guy. Clearly they have mental health issues, but there something else going on to. There’s a clear lack of appreciation of life, graphic violence is everywhere in our culture. Video games the walking dead, every other movie, HBO, and even network television. It’s everywhere. I’m not saying we’re all slowly turning into killers or that we need to shut it down. But clearly some cannot separate what’s reality and what’s fictional.

Although I agree that we live in a sick culture that glorifies violence… I don't believe that that is why we're having mass shootings. There is a concerted effort to get the public to fear and hate guns, and to willingly give up our rights. Look into the Hegelian dialectic, or problem – reaction – solution. It is also legal now to propagandize the public. Watch this video:

Nonsense.

There is no ‘effort’ – ‘concerted’ or otherwise – to get the public to fear and hate guns, the notion is ridiculous, delusional, and dishonest.

There absolutely is. Look at the verbage used. 8 years ago the news called it a handgun...now they call it a semi-automatic gun. And since plenty of non owners don’t know what that actually means, it sounds a lot scarier than just handgun which everyone knows what that is. But they hear semi automatic and think Uzi. And look at the whole very severe punishments in school for finger guns, or LEGO guns, or anything resembling a gun. Obviously those punishements DO NOT fit the crime, what they do is to teach kids to be afraid of guns.

My son was disciplined in kindergarten for playing guns "making a gun out of his finger." I threatened to sue the fuck out of the school. Luckily (for the school} I know Abernathy (lawyer/firm that represents the school district) and things were corrected.

Make no mistake. The motherfucking commies are running the schools and they doing everything in their goose-stepping power to rid an entire generation of guns. It's backfiring like a motherfucker. They would do better to preach about the goodness and righteousness of guns. They will be out of fashion much faster.

 

[danielpalos]

Disarm the military and I will accept the arbitrary infringement of my natural right to a motherfucking machine gun. Until then....


fuck off, commies!!!

Infringe is not the same as disarm.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

danielpalos: "Show Ignored Content"

I think I will pass, and just guess at what it might say:

"The Right of the Federal Government to the wellness of regulation of the clueless and causeless people-litia shall not be infringed."

 

[danielpalos]

danielpalos: "Show Ignored Content"

I think I will pass, and just guess at what it might say:

"The Right of the Federal Government to the wellness of regulation of the clueless and causeless people-litia shall not be infringed."

Our Second Amendment is a States right.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Time for reasonable gun control. Also time to update the confusing and obsolete 2nd Amendment.

We have reasonable gun control

Felons and the adjudicated mentally ill cannot buy guns.

Since when?

Say the words “close loopholes” and see what you get.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[sakinago]

danielpalos: "Show Ignored Content"

I think I will pass, and just guess at what it might say:

"The Right of the Federal Government to the wellness of regulation of the clueless and causeless people-litia shall not be infringed."

Our Second Amendment is a States right.

Then it would’ve said states instead of people. Again the first phrase of the 2nd was a qualifier to the 2nd phrase of “the RKBA of the people shall not be infringed”

To break that down for you. “Because the militia (made up and controlled by civilians) is necessary to the free state, therefore the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

A govenor could call upon the militia, but it was still up to the locally sourced and locally controlled militia to do as they please. If that wasn’t the case, then why did the founders 86 a standing army if it only took a power hungry governor to organize a coup? Most (almost all) coups aren’t carried out by the entire army, usually it’s a general or group of generals or a politician with control of some generals. On top of that a governor could sick his militia onto an uppity portion of the population if he preferred to do so. You’ve just replaced one standing army with another.

 

[turtledude]

This has changed. The 2A has only recently been made relevant for the state and local governments.

Basically you need to write something to suggest that a right cannot be violated.

1A says "Congress shall make no law"
3A says "No soldier shall"
4A says "shall not be violated"
5A says "No person shall" "nor shall any person"
6A manages to not do a negative
7A also
8A says "Excessive bail shall not be required"
9A says "shall not be construed"

Seems like the Founders wanted to mix up the wording a little bit. However Congress can make laws prohibiting free exercise of religion for those after due process. By locking them up it can limit their religious freedom. It can also decide which religions aren't really religion and prohibit such practices, like ritual executions for example.

All of these Amendments have limits.

But, those limits are only placed on those who have been found guilty of a crime and have lost their liberty.

Of course all rights have limits if the specific manner of exercising those rights infringes on the liberties of others.

Carrying a gun, in and of itself, does not infringe on the liberties of others.

Keeping a machine gun does not, in and of itself, infringe on the liberties of others.

Free speech is limited if it infringes on the liberty of others, like putting someone in direct peril by yelling fire in a crowded theater, causing people to be trampled.

The free exercise of religion is also limited if one's religion demands human sacrifice.

Due process is required before limiting one's rights, but due process alone is not sufficient. There must also be a case-specific, compelling reason for such a limit (like criminal prosecution and conviction). Otherwise, no rights are preserved.

Yes, but the argument is that the RKBA "shall not be infringed" at all, ever. Clearly wrong.

No, carrying a gun doesn't infringe on the liberties of others. Nor does taking drugs. Nor does have a nuclear bomb. Nor does being Muslim. Nor does take a knife on board with you on an airplane. Lots of things don't do anything, yet some of them are banned because they could pose a threat.

Yes, free speech is only limited when it poses a threat. If I say something that breaks the laws of treason, what I said doesn't mean that people will die, or the National Security. But it could, so you're guilty of treason.

Now, carrying guns around doesn't harm people, but it could. The fact that the US has a murder rate 4 times higher than most First World countries and 3/4 of all murders are with guns is telling. Threats are posed by people with guns. Just because it doesn't always result in harm to others isn't the point. How many of the things that are banned ALWAYS pose a threat?

So, if religion can be limited because Human Sacrifice takes away someone's life, why can't guns be taken away when 11,000 people are being murdered with them every year?

This is correct with regard to the fact that the Second Amendment right is not ‘unlimited,’ it is subject to restriction by government.

Actual human sacrifice as religious dogma is not protected by the Free Exercise Clause because the only outcome of such religious ‘expression’ is the unlawful death of an individual; that’s not the case with regard to possessing a firearm.

Second Amendment jurisprudence recognizes weapons as being either ‘dangerous and unusual’ or ‘in common use’; the former being subject to greater government restrictions, such as fully automatic firearms and SBRs, and the latter handguns, entitled to greater Second Amendment protections.

we all know about the dishonest FDR administration and its bogus commerce clause end around the second and tenth amendments but can you even hint that the founders intended federal gun control

 

[Ernie S.]

Time for reasonable gun control. Also time to update the confusing and obsolete 2nd Amendment.

Time for you to leave the U.S. Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

That ain't how it works, sparky. We use the ballot box and laws.

That we do, dunce boy and the ballot box is why the GOP controls the executive and legislative branches of government.

And when Republicans attempt to violate the rights and protected liberties of the Americans people, those disadvantaged seek relief in court, subject solely to the rule of law, not the ignorance, hate, fear, and bigotry of Republicans.

This whole thread has been about Liberals attempting to "violate the rights and protected liberties of the Americans people." Deflection might work with other Liberals and children, but it won't cut it here.

 

[Abatis]

There was both a right and a duty.

The duty was the state needed you.

However the Militia was seen as the ultimate check and balance against a tyrannical govt. As such a duty to fight a tyrannical govt isn't really there, because the Militia can be called up to the Federal or State govt's control.

What they wanted was a check which the people could use. Therefore it was a right, to fight against tyranny of their own government.

The right to be in an ad-hoc, citizen formed militia is not claimable / actionable for as long as the Constitution is in force -- there can be no militia organized except that as set-out in Art I, §8, cl's 15 & 16.

Yes, the people retain the right to throw off a tyrannical government, but the first step in that is taking back the powers granted to government (including the power to organize and call-up the militia) and invalidating any protections afforded to government by the Constitution (supremacy, preemption, prosecuting sedition and treason). So, until the people have rescinded their consent to be governed there is no right to be in a militia because the people have conferred that power/right to the federal government.

If the people are exercising this right to form a militia and are fighting a tyrannical government, that means the organized militia is no more, the armed forces are no more, the government, as it existed is no more . . . Simply because that government is no longer "the government established by the Constitution", it is something else, something foreign and dangerous -- which is why we are fighting it.

Now, there might have been a duty to be in the militia, but then there would have also been a duty to own arms. Was anyone COMPELLED to keep arms? No. .

Yes. Once enrolled and notified a man was required to "provide himself" with an appropriate firearm. The Militia Act of 1792 mandates:

• "That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a power of power; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, . . . "

Therefore if individuals have the right to KEEP ARMS, they also have the right to be in the militia

The right to keep and bear arms has no relationship with militia duty or service. The pre-existing right is recognized and secured because an armed citizenry affords the state a body of properly-situated citizens, (with arms in their hands), able to be called up at a moments notice to aid the civil government in time of need -- while the government is operating properly. Again there is no right for citizens to form their own militia and train and drill.

You don't understand Presser v. Illinois.

I understand it and I understand how the Constitution works. There can not be a power granted like federal militia powers (a power that enjoys near field preemption) and then say that a concurrent "right" exists to do the same thing . . . That's just not how it works and Presser explains it.

• "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."

There is ONE MILITIA (or 50, depending on how you look at it), it's described in Article 1, Section 8.

This is because they didn't want to destroy freedom by having any old militia walking around. It was a militia which had certain controls on it too.

"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

This militia has state appointed officers, and training as authorized by Congress.

This is the Militia you have a right to be in.

SMH . . . Now you are changing your argument from saying the people have a right to make a militia to fight a tyrannical government to now saying the people have a right to be in the organized §8 cl. 15 & 16 militia . . .

You seem to get -here- that the ONLY militias allowed under law are those organized by Congress (which sets the rules of discipline and conduct and the regimen for training) and commanded by officers chosen by the state governments, . . . and now you say there is a right to be in that militia?

Not sure how this ridiculous premise would work, especially with the complete lack of attention and concern the states and federal government exhibited towards the organized militia. Surely some citizen or group of citizens would have brought action against the federal and state governments for disregarding the militia and depriving the citizens this "right". Can you point to one instance of this right being claimed and argued to compel the federal and state governments to fulfill their constitutional militia obligations?

The actual situation of being enrolled in the militia alters the status of the citizen; when one is called up some circumstances change. Being in actual service works to roll back rights; a private citizen's 5th Amendment rights are not extended to a militia member. If one commits a crime when an enrolled militia member in time of danger, the UCMJ is the applicable justice system. Are you claiming a right to be court martialed?

The whole text is about that, read it.

I prefer to follow the foundational constitutional principle that the right to keep and bear arms is not granted, created, given or otherwise established by the 2nd Amendment thus it does not in any manner depend on the Constitution for its existence. Trying to "interpret" the 2nd Amendment's words to see what it "allows" citizens to do (or own), is illegitimate.

SCOTUS has been affirming this principle for going on over 140 years:

• "The right . . . of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose" . . . 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, . . ." (Cruikshank, 1876)
  
  " . . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms 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, . . ." (Presser, 1886)
  
  "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 … .” (Heller, 2008)

This principle also means that the right to arms can not be argued to have any militia conditioning or qualification placed on it. The right can't in any manner depend on something (like the militia structure that cl. 15 & 16 sets-out) that is itself, entirely, completely dependent on the Constitution for its existence.

Also, they made the "unorganized militia" in the Dick Act of 1903, because they knew if they made the National Guard, that individuals could demand to be in it, reducing the effectiveness of the militia. So they "unorganized militia" was a way of saying "you have your right to be in the militia, see you're already in it, so stop complaining" while keeping them away from the actual effective militia.

In 24 years of debating gun rights on-line, I thought I saw it all.

The Dick Act put the final nail in the coffin of the §8, cl. 15 & 16 militia. It also answered unequivocally any question . . . that there are no "militia rights" for anyone (states or citizens) to claim.

 

[Abatis]

Presser clarifies it. "Shall not be infringed" applies only to the Federal Government, not State and Local governments; however, one could argue (as I do, just to be an ass) that the "privileges and immunities" clause of the 14th Amendment applies the 2nd Amendment's complete ban on infringement to State and local governments (which is a fucked-up conundrum caused by thoughtless/careless drafting and ratifying of the 14th Amendment).


What a beautiful irony. The very effort to vitiate individual state sovereignty may end up beening the savior thereof (at least partially).

Presser clarifies a lot but not that . . .

The 14th's "privileges or immunities" (and it's "or", not "and") clause was gutted by SCOTUS in Slaughterhouse in 1873.

Presser, after quoting Cruikshank on the federal only application of the 2nd and paraphrasing that it is not granted by the 2nd thus the right does not depend on the Constitution to exist, actually goes on a expedition looking to see just how far the right to arms actually goes under the Constitution.

It says that the right to arms is enforced against state actions prohibiting the people from keeping and bearing arms, simply by the structure of the Constitution (as a Republic). This works in reverse of "state's rights".

• "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, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government."

The 2nd Amendment is not what forbids governments (plural) from disarming the citizens. It is the foundational principle of a republic, an armed citizenry and the general militia principle, that the citizens and their arms provide for the free state.

 

[P@triot]

And when Republicans attempt to violate the rights and protected liberties of the Americans people...

Why does CCJ think the left in the U.S. are called “Republicans”? That’s the problem with foreigners who stick their nose into discussions about U.S. politics - they have no idea what they are talking about.

(Psst...stupid...Republicans protect liberty. Dumbocrats try to end liberty)

 

[P@triot]

Pure idiocy

True...but sadly...that’s what this board has come to expect from you.

 

[sakinago]

There was both a right and a duty.

The duty was the state needed you.

However the Militia was seen as the ultimate check and balance against a tyrannical govt. As such a duty to fight a tyrannical govt isn't really there, because the Militia can be called up to the Federal or State govt's control.

What they wanted was a check which the people could use. Therefore it was a right, to fight against tyranny of their own government.

The right to be in an ad-hoc, citizen formed militia is not claimable / actionable for as long as the Constitution is in force -- there can be no militia organized except that as set-out in Art I, §8, cl's 15 & 16.

Yes, the people retain the right to throw off a tyrannical government, but the first step in that is taking back the powers granted to government (including the power to organize and call-up the militia) and invalidating any protections afforded to government by the Constitution (supremacy, preemption, prosecuting sedition and treason). So, until the people have rescinded their consent to be governed there is no right to be in a militia because the people have conferred that power/right to the federal government.

If the people are exercising this right to form a militia and are fighting a tyrannical government, that means the organized militia is no more, the armed forces are no more, the government, as it existed is no more . . . Simply because that government is no longer "the government established by the Constitution", it is something else, something foreign and dangerous -- which is why we are fighting it.

Now, there might have been a duty to be in the militia, but then there would have also been a duty to own arms. Was anyone COMPELLED to keep arms? No. .

Yes. Once enrolled and notified a man was required to "provide himself" with an appropriate firearm. The Militia Act of 1792 mandates:

• "That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a power of power; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, . . . "

Therefore if individuals have the right to KEEP ARMS, they also have the right to be in the militia

The right to keep and bear arms has no relationship with militia duty or service. The pre-existing right is recognized and secured because an armed citizenry affords the state a body of properly-situated citizens, (with arms in their hands), able to be called up at a moments notice to aid the civil government in time of need -- while the government is operating properly. Again there is no right for citizens to form their own militia and train and drill.

You don't understand Presser v. Illinois.

I understand it and I understand how the Constitution works. There can not be a power granted like federal militia powers (a power that enjoys near field preemption) and then say that a concurrent "right" exists to do the same thing . . . That's just not how it works and Presser explains it.

• "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."

There is ONE MILITIA (or 50, depending on how you look at it), it's described in Article 1, Section 8.

This is because they didn't want to destroy freedom by having any old militia walking around. It was a militia which had certain controls on it too.

"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

This militia has state appointed officers, and training as authorized by Congress.

This is the Militia you have a right to be in.

SMH . . . Now you are changing your argument from saying the people have a right to make a militia to fight a tyrannical government to now saying the people have a right to be in the organized §8 cl. 15 & 16 militia . . .

You seem to get -here- that the ONLY militias allowed under law are those organized by Congress (which sets the rules of discipline and conduct and the regimen for training) and commanded by officers chosen by the state governments, . . . and now you say there is a right to be in that militia?

Not sure how this ridiculous premise would work, especially with the complete lack of attention and concern the states and federal government exhibited towards the organized militia. Surely some citizen or group of citizens would have brought action against the federal and state governments for disregarding the militia and depriving the citizens this "right". Can you point to one instance of this right being claimed and argued to compel the federal and state governments to fulfill their constitutional militia obligations?

The actual situation of being enrolled in the militia alters the status of the citizen; when one is called up some circumstances change. Being in actual service works to roll back rights; a private citizen's 5th Amendment rights are not extended to a militia member. If one commits a crime when an enrolled militia member in time of danger, the UCMJ is the applicable justice system. Are you claiming a right to be court martialed?

The whole text is about that, read it.

I prefer to follow the foundational constitutional principle that the right to keep and bear arms is not granted, created, given or otherwise established by the 2nd Amendment thus it does not in any manner depend on the Constitution for its existence. Trying to "interpret" the 2nd Amendment's words to see what it "allows" citizens to do (or own), is illegitimate.

SCOTUS has been affirming this principle for going on over 140 years:

• "The right . . . of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose" . . . 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, . . ." (Cruikshank, 1876)
  
  " . . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms 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, . . ." (Presser, 1886)
  
  "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 … .” (Heller, 2008)

This principle also means that the right to arms can not be argued to have any militia conditioning or qualification placed on it. The right can't in any manner depend on something (like the militia structure that cl. 15 & 16 sets-out) that is itself, entirely, completely dependent on the Constitution for its existence.

Also, they made the "unorganized militia" in the Dick Act of 1903, because they knew if they made the National Guard, that individuals could demand to be in it, reducing the effectiveness of the militia. So they "unorganized militia" was a way of saying "you have your right to be in the militia, see you're already in it, so stop complaining" while keeping them away from the actual effective militia.

In 24 years of debating gun rights on-line, I thought I saw it all.

The Dick Act put the final nail in the coffin of the §8, cl. 15 & 16 militia. It also answered unequivocally any question . . . that there are no "militia rights" for anyone (states or citizens) to claim.

Im sure you’ll continue to be surprised in the future. Just when you though you’ve seen it all...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And when Republicans attempt to violate the rights and protected liberties of the Americans people, those disadvantaged seek relief in court, subject solely to the rule of law, not the ignorance, hate, fear, and bigotry of Republicans.

^ Question, C_Clayton_Jones: ^
And where is this consistent enforcement of law upheld when it comes to SECULAR "beliefs" and
freedom of choice whether to accept these or not:

* LGBT beliefs that homosexual orientation is natural and cannot change
* Beliefs in transgender identity that should be endorsed and enforced through govt, even forced on people of other beliefs; but not Christian beliefs or expressions that should be removed because "not all people share those beliefs, which can't be imposed by govt"
* beliefs in same sex marriage
* beliefs in forcing everyone under govt run health care even if that violates their Constitutional beliefs

That are all EQUALLY faith based? Where laws and penalties favoring these beliefs discriminate against people of opposing beliefs who cannot comply without violating their own beliefs?

Why are people of other beliefs SUBJECT to the harassment, bullying, namecalling, "ignorance, hate, fear, and bigotry" put out by Liberals who claim to be open to tolerance, inclusion of diversity, freedom of choice, and equal protection from discrimination for all people? Or is that only for citizens of leftist political beliefs?

As usual your post makes no sense whatsoever.

Perhaps these facts will help:

Our rights are inalienable but not absolute.

Our rights and protected liberties concern solely the relationship between government and those governed.

Government has the authority to place limits and restrictions on our rights and protected liberties consistent with Constitutional jurisprudence.

Constitutional jurisprudence evolves and develops as a consequence of the adversarial interaction between government and the courts.

Laws are presumed to be Constitutional until the Supreme Court rules otherwise; the courts will make a good faith attempt to defer to the will of the people as expressed by their elected representative who write and enact laws, but will reluctantly invalidated laws demonstrated to be un-Constitutional.

Laws enacted predicated on the ‘values’ of the people do not make those laws immune from attack by the courts, such as ‘values’ which seek to discriminate against or disadvantage gay and transgender American through force of law.

Private citizens are at liberty to practice their ‘values’ as they are not subject to Constitutional restrictions, including discriminating against gay and transgender Americans.

And no, public accommodations laws with provisions prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation do not ‘violate’ the rights of Christian business owners to indeed discriminate against gay patrons (Smith v. Employment Division).

 

[frigidweirdo]

There was both a right and a duty.

The duty was the state needed you.

However the Militia was seen as the ultimate check and balance against a tyrannical govt. As such a duty to fight a tyrannical govt isn't really there, because the Militia can be called up to the Federal or State govt's control.

What they wanted was a check which the people could use. Therefore it was a right, to fight against tyranny of their own government.

The right to be in an ad-hoc, citizen formed militia is not claimable / actionable for as long as the Constitution is in force -- there can be no militia organized except that as set-out in Art I, §8, cl's 15 & 16.

Yes, the people retain the right to throw off a tyrannical government, but the first step in that is taking back the powers granted to government (including the power to organize and call-up the militia) and invalidating any protections afforded to government by the Constitution (supremacy, preemption, prosecuting sedition and treason). So, until the people have rescinded their consent to be governed there is no right to be in a militia because the people have conferred that power/right to the federal government.

If the people are exercising this right to form a militia and are fighting a tyrannical government, that means the organized militia is no more, the armed forces are no more, the government, as it existed is no more . . . Simply because that government is no longer "the government established by the Constitution", it is something else, something foreign and dangerous -- which is why we are fighting it.

Now, there might have been a duty to be in the militia, but then there would have also been a duty to own arms. Was anyone COMPELLED to keep arms? No. .

Yes. Once enrolled and notified a man was required to "provide himself" with an appropriate firearm. The Militia Act of 1792 mandates:

• "That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a power of power; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, . . . "

Therefore if individuals have the right to KEEP ARMS, they also have the right to be in the militia

The right to keep and bear arms has no relationship with militia duty or service. The pre-existing right is recognized and secured because an armed citizenry affords the state a body of properly-situated citizens, (with arms in their hands), able to be called up at a moments notice to aid the civil government in time of need -- while the government is operating properly. Again there is no right for citizens to form their own militia and train and drill.

You don't understand Presser v. Illinois.

I understand it and I understand how the Constitution works. There can not be a power granted like federal militia powers (a power that enjoys near field preemption) and then say that a concurrent "right" exists to do the same thing . . . That's just not how it works and Presser explains it.

• "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."

There is ONE MILITIA (or 50, depending on how you look at it), it's described in Article 1, Section 8.

This is because they didn't want to destroy freedom by having any old militia walking around. It was a militia which had certain controls on it too.

"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

This militia has state appointed officers, and training as authorized by Congress.

This is the Militia you have a right to be in.

SMH . . . Now you are changing your argument from saying the people have a right to make a militia to fight a tyrannical government to now saying the people have a right to be in the organized §8 cl. 15 & 16 militia . . .

You seem to get -here- that the ONLY militias allowed under law are those organized by Congress (which sets the rules of discipline and conduct and the regimen for training) and commanded by officers chosen by the state governments, . . . and now you say there is a right to be in that militia?

Not sure how this ridiculous premise would work, especially with the complete lack of attention and concern the states and federal government exhibited towards the organized militia. Surely some citizen or group of citizens would have brought action against the federal and state governments for disregarding the militia and depriving the citizens this "right". Can you point to one instance of this right being claimed and argued to compel the federal and state governments to fulfill their constitutional militia obligations?

The actual situation of being enrolled in the militia alters the status of the citizen; when one is called up some circumstances change. Being in actual service works to roll back rights; a private citizen's 5th Amendment rights are not extended to a militia member. If one commits a crime when an enrolled militia member in time of danger, the UCMJ is the applicable justice system. Are you claiming a right to be court martialed?

The whole text is about that, read it.

I prefer to follow the foundational constitutional principle that the right to keep and bear arms is not granted, created, given or otherwise established by the 2nd Amendment thus it does not in any manner depend on the Constitution for its existence. Trying to "interpret" the 2nd Amendment's words to see what it "allows" citizens to do (or own), is illegitimate.

SCOTUS has been affirming this principle for going on over 140 years:

• "The right . . . of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose" . . . 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, . . ." (Cruikshank, 1876)
  
  " . . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms 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, . . ." (Presser, 1886)
  
  "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 … .” (Heller, 2008)

This principle also means that the right to arms can not be argued to have any militia conditioning or qualification placed on it. The right can't in any manner depend on something (like the militia structure that cl. 15 & 16 sets-out) that is itself, entirely, completely dependent on the Constitution for its existence.

Also, they made the "unorganized militia" in the Dick Act of 1903, because they knew if they made the National Guard, that individuals could demand to be in it, reducing the effectiveness of the militia. So they "unorganized militia" was a way of saying "you have your right to be in the militia, see you're already in it, so stop complaining" while keeping them away from the actual effective militia.

In 24 years of debating gun rights on-line, I thought I saw it all.

The Dick Act put the final nail in the coffin of the §8, cl. 15 & 16 militia. It also answered unequivocally any question . . . that there are no "militia rights" for anyone (states or citizens) to claim.

Problem with your argument is that the Founding Fathers protected the right to be in the militia.

The reason being that they wanted to protect the Constitution by protecting the militia.

They protected the right to keep arms so there would be a ready supply of arms. They protected the right to bear arms so there would be a ready supply of personnel to use those weapons.

"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."

Mr Gerry said this quote above. The clause he was referring to was "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

So, the govt being able to prevent people from bearing arms would give the people in power the opportunity to destroy the Constitution. HOW? By stopping them walking around with guns on a daily basis? Er.... no.

Because the next thing he says is "What, sir, is the use of a militia?"

"Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."

When talking about "bear arms" they were taking about PROTECTING THE MILITIA by protecting individuals to "render military service".

It's all there.

You're twisting things.

There is not right to FORM a militia. There is a right to be in the militia as stated in Article 1 Section 8.

The Militia Act of 1792 was just that, an ACT of CONGRESS. Meaning it's not something required by the Constitution.
You have Constitutional law, and then you have normal law. Two different things. Don't pretend that because in 1792 they made a law for something, that this was a requirement of the Constitution. In fact, if they had to make a law about it, it clearly WAS NOT in the Constitution.

I see that you say the "right to bear arms has no relationship with the militia duty or service", but I get the feeling you don't understand this.

You don't need to be in the militia to be able to keep guns. That would defeat the whole point of the 2A which was to have a ready supply of guns outside of federal control and to have a ready supply of personnel outside of federal control.

You didn't need to be in the militia to have the right. EVERYONE had the right. However the right was to be in the militia. So those NOT IN THE MILITIA could JOIN THE MILITIA.

Imagine saying "You can only join the militia if you're already in the militia", er..... you'd have to be a pretty fucking stupid bunch of Founding Fathers to protect something like this.

No, you clearly don't understand what Presser said.

There is no right to join up together with your mates and be a pretend militia. The right is to be in THE militia, not in A militia. Your quoting of Presser doesn't seem to do anything for your argument at all. I'm not really sure what you want to say, I just know you're wrong.

"Now you are changing your argument from saying the people have a right to make a militia"

No, I'm not. I never said people have a right to make a militia.

"I prefer to follow the foundational constitutional principle that the right to keep and bear arms is not granted, created, given or otherwise established by the 2nd Amendment thus it does not in any manner depend on the Constitution for its existence. Trying to "interpret" the 2nd Amendment's words to see what it "allows" citizens to do (or own), is illegitimate."

It doesn't matter whether the right is considered to exist before or not. If it's protected by the Constitution then it's protected. If the US govt doesn't recognize something, you can shout as much as you like.

Like my right to murder. I prefer to follow the foundational constitutional principle that the right to murder is not granted, created, given or otherwise established.

Do you think they're going to listen?

In 24 years of debating online, you're still making up arguments for me.

I'm sorry you've spent 24 years debating on line with people who have no clue. But it's just changed.

Yes, the Dick Act put the final nail in the coffin of the militia. Why?

Why did they make the Dick Act? Why did they make the "unorganized militia"?

I've told you why. And you've just come back at me with nothing. As if they just decided "hey, I know, let's make the unorganized militia because it's my birthday tomorrow".

Oh, please. They did it for A REASON.