Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Actually many of the "rights" you think of as individual rights, are more easily explained as a group right, like the right to run for president. That group started as white males over 35 and natural born citizens.
As an individual right there were too many exceptions
And as we saw prior to Heller, The Second Amendment codified a collective right – there was no individual right to possess a firearm.
A well-regulated militia is one that has trained sufficiently enough to fight effectively as a single coherent unit instead of fighting like a bunch of random individuals.What is your definition of a "well regulated Militia"?
There are no guns, bullets, or magazines that serve only that purpose.I want certain guns, bullets and magazines banned because they serve no purpose but to slaughter school children, church goers and shoppers
No such weapons exist.Yes we can
We can ban weapons that have no purpose other than slaughter young children
I assume today (at least if 30 round magazines count), but I'm not going to go digging through all of today's cases to verify that assumption.When was the last time an AR-15 with 35 round magazine was used to stop a mass killing?
So in other words, everyone has the right to have military weapons.The first clause explains the reasons (limits) on the second clause.
Oh man. Whoever wrote this article that you are cut-n-pasting is really bad at the law.‘The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Such language has created considerable debate regarding the Amendment's intended scope. On the one hand, some believe that the Amendment's phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" creates an individual constitutional right to possess firearms.
Actually the Miller court expressly rejected the collective approach and ruled for an individual right.Under this "individual right theory," the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional. On the other hand, some scholars point to the prefatory language "a well regulated Militia" to argue that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state's right to self-defense. Scholars call this theory "the collective rights theory." A collective rights theory of the Second Amendment asserts that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right.
In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174. There, the Court adopted a collective rights approach,
No. To ensure the effectiveness of the militia.determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun which moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia . . . ." The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military.
They also intended to protect the preexisting individual right to keep and bear arms.The original intent of the Framers was to codify in the Second Amendment a collective – not individual – right subject to government regulation.
I assume your comment about "self regulating" refers to militia service.Access to firearms has nothing to do with regulation; and there’s nothing in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment that authorizes the notion of armed citizens ‘self-regulating’ completely absent government control and oversight.
Keep in mind that people also have the right to use their guns for the private defense of their homes.The right of the people to keep and bear arms is to do so in the service and defense of the state, as authorized and controlled by government.
The Heller court did not contrive anything. But it is true that they are not upholding the militia aspects of the Second Amendmnet.That’s why the Heller Court saw fit to contrive the individual right unconnected with militia service, because the Second Amendment recognized a collective right.
Not really.And the collective right interpretation of the Second Amendment would allow banning individuals from possessing firearms because they weren’t in the service of a militia
Ignoring the collective aspects (as well as all the militia aspects altogether) does not really invalidate them. It just fails to enforce those aspects for now.which is why the Heller Court invalidated the collective right interpretation.
Not really. It was about "individual self-defense-related right" verses "no individual self-defense-related right".Indeed, Heller was about the individual right versus the collective right.
What is this nonsense about "need"? We're not British serfs. We don't have to justify that we need a gun before we go buy it.You don’t 'need' an AR 15 to defend yourself
That is incorrect. A good rifle is superior for self defense.there are other firearms much better suited for that purpose, such as handguns and shotguns.
That is because the right cares about following the Constitution.Wrong.
The ‘left’ follows settled accepted Second Amendment case law; whereas the right has nothing but contempt for that case law.
Need doesn't matter. We have the right to have them for effective self defense.And no one says you can’t have an AR 15, there’s simply no ‘need’ for one for effective self-defense.
Agreed.Collective rights do exist as legal doctrine – such as the right to engage in collective bargaining (NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. (1937)); clearly a worker alone possesses no such right.
That is incorrect. The Second Amendment has always protected an individual right.And as we saw prior to Heller, The Second Amendment codified a collective right – there was no individual right to possess a firearm.
There are no guns, bullets, or magazines that serve only that purpose.
That's not accurate. When the Bill of Rights was written, the term "bear arms" meant to carry a weapon into battle; it had no connotation to individual use. The wording of the Second Amendment was based on English law going back to the time of King James II, who tried to disarm local militias so his royal goons could collect taxes, and the right to "bear arms" meant for those locals to collectively resist the King's efforts.The Second Amendment has always protected an individual right.
That's not accurate. When the Bill of Rights was written, the term "bear arms" meant to carry a weapon into battle; it had no connotation to individual use. The wording of the Second Amendment was based on English law going back to the time of King James II, who tried to disarm local militias so his royal goons could collect taxes, and the right to "bear arms" meant for those locals to collectively resist the King's efforts.
A hundred-ish years later, when Madison & Co. were debating the Bill of Rights, each State has its own militia, and many (especially the Anti-Federalists) were concerned that the American government were going to try and pull a King James. The debate then was about State resistance against a federal authority; there was no discussion about individual rights to own a firearm for hunting or self-defense, and Madison didn't mention it in his notes once. The first draft of the Amendment even included an exception for conscientious objectors.
That was mostly the view of gun rights until the 1970s, when the NRA changed direction from being about sporting to opposing gun control, and the push began in earnest in the 1980s. Scalia's Heller decision in 2008 was a change in direction from earlier rulings, not a continuation of it. It is, however, a legit ruling that will stand until it is superseded by law or a future ruling, but it wasn't always that way.
Being about carrying a weapon into battle does not mean that it is not an individual right.That's not accurate. When the Bill of Rights was written, the term "bear arms" meant to carry a weapon into battle; it had no connotation to individual use.
The British also had the right to use their firearms for the private defense of their homes against common criminals.The wording of the Second Amendment was based on English law going back to the time of King James II, who tried to disarm local militias so his royal goons could collect taxes, and the right to "bear arms" meant for those locals to collectively resist the King's efforts.
Being about state militias though does not mean that it is not an individual right.A hundred-ish years later, when Madison & Co. were debating the Bill of Rights, each State has its own militia, and many (especially the Anti-Federalists) were concerned that the American government were going to try and pull a King James. The debate then was about State resistance against a federal authority; there was no discussion about individual rights to own a firearm for hunting or self-defense, and Madison didn't mention it in his notes once. The first draft of the Amendment even included an exception for conscientious objectors.
The change in direction was not about the existence of individual rights. Rather, the change in 2008 was about "enforcing part of the Second Amendment" instead of "completely disregarding the entire Second Amendment".That was mostly the view of gun rights until the 1970s, when the NRA changed direction from being about sporting to opposing gun control, and the push began in earnest in the 1980s. Scalia's Heller decision in 2008 was a change in direction from earlier rulings, not a continuation of it. It is, however, a legit ruling that will stand until it is superseded by law or a future ruling, but it wasn't always that way.
Its not about our definition, its about the definition of the people who wrote it. Unfortunately they didnt define that first part very well, but the second part is unmistakable."A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.constitutioncenter.org
What is your definition of a "well regulated Militia"?
No there aren't. No one can name any gun/bullet/magazine which has the sole purpose of slaughtering school children, church goers and shoppers.Yes there are
Is this supposed to be an attempt to name a gun that "serves no purpose but to slaughter school children, church goers and shoppers"?You don’t need an AR-15 to hunt rabbits
That is incorrect. People who are trying to slaughter 10 year olds do not need a 35 round magazine. Ten-round magazines work just fine for massacres.You don’t need a 35 round magazine unless you want to slaughter more 10 year olds
Is this supposed to be an attempt to say that body armor "serves no purpose but to slaughter school children, church goers and shoppers"?You don’t need body armor to hunt deer
I agree that the government has a compelling interest in disarming dangerous people.We don’t need wife beaters, seriously depressed, people who are making threats having open access to their weapons of choice
The correct definition is still out there. All you need to do is look at how Alexander Hamilton used the term in Federalist 29.Unfortunately they didnt define that first part very well,
But you completely missed the point. The second amendment is not there to establish a well regulated militia. It is there to protect the right of the people.Absolutely
We cannot have the security of a free state without well regulated militias
A bunch of rednecks running around with AR-15s is not well regulated
We are all in a militia. We are the militia.Yes there are
You don’t need an AR-15 to hunt rabbits
You don’t need a 35 round magazine unless you want to slaughter more 10 year olds
You don’t need body armor to hunt deer
We don’t need wife beaters, seriously depressed, people who are making threats having open access to their weapons of choice
Something in good working order."A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.constitutioncenter.org
What is your definition of a "well regulated Militia"?
