HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » 2nd amenment refers to gu...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 11:36 AM

2nd amenment refers to gun ownership in terms of belonging to a 'militia':

From wikipedia:

A militia (pron.: /mɨˈlɪʃə/), or irregular army, generally refers to an army or other fighting force that is composed of non-professional fighters; citizens of a nation or subjects of a state or government that can be called upon to enter a combat situation, as opposed to a professional force of regular soldiers or, historically, members of the fighting nobility. Some of the ways the term is used include:
Defense activity or service, to protect a community, its territory, property, and laws.
The entire able-bodied population of a community, town, county, or state, available to be called to arms. A subset of these who may be legally penalized for failing to respond to a call-up.
A subset of these who actually respond to a call-up, regardless of legal obligation.

A private, non-government force, not necessarily directly supported or sanctioned by its government.
An official reserve army, composed of citizen soldiers. Called by various names in different countries such as; the Army Reserve, National Guard, or state defense forces.
The national police forces in several former communist states such as the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact countries, but also in the non-aligned SFR Yugoslavia. The term was inherited in Russia, and other former CIS countries. See: Militia (Police).
In France the equivalent term "Milice" has become tainted due to its use by notorious collaborators with Nazi Germany.
A select militia is composed of a small, non-representative portion of the population, often politicized.
Owning a gun for any other reason IS NOT in the 2nd amendment.

106 replies, 8515 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 106 replies Author Time Post
Reply 2nd amenment refers to gun ownership in terms of belonging to a 'militia': (Original post)
clydefrand Feb 2013 OP
Flashmann Feb 2013 #1
HooptieWagon Feb 2013 #12
jimmy the one Feb 2013 #23
HooptieWagon Feb 2013 #64
gejohnston Feb 2013 #65
HooptieWagon Feb 2013 #68
jimmy the one Feb 2013 #72
HooptieWagon Feb 2013 #73
Glaug-Eldare Feb 2013 #74
HooptieWagon Feb 2013 #75
jimmy the one Feb 2013 #78
Eleanors38 Feb 2013 #98
Eleanors38 Feb 2013 #16
Bay Boy Feb 2013 #77
Eleanors38 Feb 2013 #97
Lurks Often Feb 2013 #19
discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2013 #49
Warren Stupidity Feb 2013 #2
bossy22 Feb 2013 #20
gejohnston Feb 2013 #3
NYC_SKP Feb 2013 #4
jmg257 Feb 2013 #21
NYC_SKP Feb 2013 #24
jmg257 Feb 2013 #28
NYC_SKP Feb 2013 #42
jmg257 Feb 2013 #60
iiibbb Feb 2013 #5
Tuesday Afternoon Feb 2013 #6
jmg257 Feb 2013 #22
Tuesday Afternoon Feb 2013 #30
jmg257 Feb 2013 #33
Tuesday Afternoon Feb 2013 #34
jmg257 Feb 2013 #38
Tuesday Afternoon Feb 2013 #41
jmg257 Feb 2013 #45
Ashgrey77 Feb 2013 #51
jmg257 Feb 2013 #54
Glaug-Eldare Feb 2013 #56
jmg257 Feb 2013 #61
Tuesday Afternoon Feb 2013 #83
discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2013 #84
jmg257 Feb 2013 #85
Tuesday Afternoon Feb 2013 #90
jmg257 Feb 2013 #91
jmg257 Feb 2013 #93
gejohnston Feb 2013 #94
jmg257 Feb 2013 #96
NYC_SKP Feb 2013 #25
jmg257 Feb 2013 #29
Tuesday Afternoon Feb 2013 #31
jmg257 Feb 2013 #35
Tuesday Afternoon Feb 2013 #36
jmg257 Feb 2013 #40
Tuesday Afternoon Feb 2013 #43
jmg257 Feb 2013 #44
Tuesday Afternoon Feb 2013 #48
jmg257 Feb 2013 #52
Tuesday Afternoon Feb 2013 #82
jmg257 Feb 2013 #86
Tuesday Afternoon Feb 2013 #89
jmg257 Feb 2013 #92
Tuesday Afternoon Feb 2013 #95
jmg257 Feb 2013 #100
gcomeau Feb 2013 #101
discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2013 #7
sarisataka Feb 2013 #8
krispos42 Feb 2013 #9
Tuesday Afternoon Feb 2013 #32
guardian Feb 2013 #88
Glaug-Eldare Feb 2013 #10
clydefrand Feb 2013 #13
Glaug-Eldare Feb 2013 #14
NYC_SKP Feb 2013 #26
HooptieWagon Feb 2013 #69
Eleanors38 Feb 2013 #99
raidert05 Feb 2013 #11
Lizzie Poppet Feb 2013 #15
Eleanors38 Feb 2013 #17
Tuesday Afternoon Feb 2013 #55
Puha Ekapi Feb 2013 #18
NYC_SKP Feb 2013 #27
bossy22 Feb 2013 #37
jimmy the one Feb 2013 #58
jimmy the one Feb 2013 #63
Glaug-Eldare Feb 2013 #66
raidert05 Feb 2013 #79
jimmy the one Feb 2013 #80
rightsideout Feb 2013 #39
bossy22 Feb 2013 #50
Glaug-Eldare Feb 2013 #46
jimmy the one Feb 2013 #67
Glaug-Eldare Feb 2013 #71
Tuesday Afternoon Feb 2013 #81
Bay Boy Feb 2013 #103
gcomeau Feb 2013 #104
Glaug-Eldare Feb 2013 #105
gcomeau Feb 2013 #106
ileus Feb 2013 #47
gcomeau Feb 2013 #102
rightsideout Feb 2013 #53
NYC_SKP Feb 2013 #57
gejohnston Feb 2013 #59
NYC_SKP Feb 2013 #70
AtheistCrusader Feb 2013 #62
Deep13 Feb 2013 #76
GreenStormCloud Feb 2013 #87

Response to clydefrand (Original post)


Response to Flashmann (Reply #1)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 01:00 PM

12. At the time the 2nd A was written, the US was largely rural.

And in all those rural households, most males over the age of 12 probably had a rifle for hunting and defense. Traders carried rifles for protection, and travellers and urban dwellers likely carried a pistol at a minimum. Merchant ships even carried small swivel cannons. I rather suspect that this was all known and accepted by the writers of the Constitution.
What was also recognized by Constitutional authors was a public distrust of standing armies. The writers were allowing for national defense to be composed of citizen militias. At that time, firearms were not mass-produced, with interchangable parts and a common ammunition. The US probably didn't have money to stockpile weapons "just in case", nor were there armories to store them. It was expected that when summoned, citizens would report bearing their personal weapons...those that they used on an almost daily basis and were intimately familiar with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #12)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 02:46 PM

23. Scarcity of firearms in 1791, not plentiful

hooptie: At the time the 2nd A was written {1791}, the US was largely rural. And in all those rural households, most males over the age of 12 probably had a rifle for hunting and defense.

This is mostly nonsense, straight from the 2ndAmendment Mythology. It was only common to have a firearm per agrarian household, if that. (America was largely agrarian then) And households were usually 6 - 8 people.

Traders carried rifles for protection, and travellers and urban dwellers likely carried a pistol at a minimum.

Where do you come up with this? oh sorry, 2ndA mythology.

hooptie: At that time, firearms were not mass-produced, with interchangable parts and a common ammunition. The US probably didn't have money to stockpile weapons "just in case", nor were there armories to store them. It was expected that when summoned, citizens would report bearing their personal weapons...those that they used on an almost daily basis and were intimately familiar with.

Well where did they get the guns from then? the 600,000 american white adult males?; and Correction, there were no national armories prior to 1795 (harpers ferry,wva), but there were certainly state armories, indeed the british attack on concord was on the armory there.
State armories existed & generally about half (iirc) a states firearms (incl public & private) were kept there.
In 1803 dearborn, under jefferson, conducted a firearm census which showed only 45% of militia members had access to a firearm (see below, includes state provided), which meant more than half white males did not. White males of militia age comprised about 20% of american population of 3 million in 1790, which translates into about 300,000 men with predominantly muskets (~75%), maybe half of them not up to par, rusted or malfunction prone, rev war leftovers.
Tell us hooptie, since there were no national armories yet, & springfield & harpers ferry produced maybe 10,000 by 1800, where did americans get all those 600,000 muskets & pistols & rifles so as to be so well armed?
.. washington complained of the scarcity of firearms at rev-warstart & the french & dutch sent him about 120,000 musquettes post haste to prosecute the war, toss in about 60,000 from the french indian wars of ending 1763, & the spattering of slow produced home gunsmithery, you might have 200,000 by 1800.
Where all the guns come from, accd'g to your 2ndA mythology?

The nation's first Sec of War, Henry Knox, ordered several nationwide counts of guns during George Washington's presidency. During Thomas Jefferson's admin, a more ambitious and careful national count was launched by War Secr Henry Dearborn in 1803, covering arms held both publicly and privately. The result showed that about 45 percent of militia-eligible men (roughly between the ages 18-45) had arms, or about 24% of adult white males.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-j-spitzer/upset-about-a-census-of-p_b_521389.html

1808 letter, Jefferson wrote, “I learn with great concern that portion of our frontier should be so entirely unprovided with common fire-arms. I did not suppose any part of the United States so destitute of what is considered as among the first necessaries of a farm-house.”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #23)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 04:47 PM

64. Hogwash.

The myth that colonial america was unarmed was de-bunked. In fact, one of the British actions in turning colonial dissatisfaction and grumbling into outright rebellion was Britain banning gun imports to america in 1774, and attempts to confiscate gu.s and powder in 1774 and 75. Royal Governor of Massachusetts Thomas Gage even wrote back to England that his job of suppressing rebellion was impossible, since every male 16 and over had a gun and plenty of powder. This was in relatively urban Boston.
http://www.examiner.com/article/the-american-revolution-was-against-british-gun-control
If colonial america was relatively unarmed, then why did the British find it neccessary to dis-arm them? And although many guns were imported from Europe, there were also guns made by individual gunsmiths here. One of my old Foxfire books has a whole chapter on making rifles by hand, as it was done in the colonial era.
As to armories, they didn't exist to a great extent pre-revolution. People USED their guns, they didn't lock them up. Towns and cities had buildings to store powder, since it was unstable and a danger to neighbors if every house was storing a large quantity. Armories for the purpose of storing weapons didn't happen until mass-production of weapons generated enough inventory they COULD be stockpiled. I don't think that happened until the early 19th Century though. About 40 years after the 2nd A.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #64)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 05:00 PM

65. he is a big

Michael Bellesiles fan. I wonder if Bellesiles has his own Mary Rosh?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #65)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 05:34 PM

68. I gathered he was a fan of that fraud.

Among other fabrications, Bellesiles quoted 19th Century probate records from San Francisco. Those records were destroyed in the 1906 fire. Bellesiles cherry-picked and even manufactured data to support his thesis... because the facts didn't. The awards and accolades he got were later rescinded when he was exposed as a fraud.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #64)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 06:11 PM

72. hogwash boomerangs

hooptie: The myth that colonial america was unarmed was de-bunked.

Colonial America? they might've had 50,000 muskets by 1760, is all. But you start from a false premise, since no one ever said anyone was 'unarmed', just underarmed, so I can't argue your invalid point. If you speak of being 'underarmed', in early america as well, how does one go about 'debunking' dearborns Firearm Census of 1803, which showed only 45% of militiamen aged 17-45, could be armed with a firearm, either by the state they lived in, or by the militiaman himself? Where has that firearm census of 1803 been debunked?
Jefferson 1808 corroborated the scarcity of firearms, & GWashington did too, when he said (paraphrased) firearms are not to be had in these governments', about 1775.

In fact, one of the British actions in turning colonial dissatisfaction and grumbling into outright rebellion was Britain banning gun imports to america in 1774, and attempts to confiscate gu.s and powder in 1774 and 75.

.. thanks, this actually helps my argument, since it meant 'less' guns in america (& to which washington, again, firearms not to be had in these govts.

Gage even wrote back to England that his job of suppressing rebellion was impossible, since every male 16 and over had a gun and plenty of powder. This was in relatively urban Boston.

I see; so gage did his own firearm census of boston in 1775? hardly, he was obviously making a general comment from what he'd seen mobilized before him, or what his regiments had seen or come across. You use anecdotal evidence/hearsay, as well as a link to a rightwing article by gunguru kopel, hardly an unbiased writer:
kopel: When he {gage} dispatched the Redcoats to break up an illegal town meeting in Salem, 3000 armed Americans appeared in response, and the British retreated. Gage’s aide John Andrews explained that everyone in the area aged 16 years or older owned a gun and plenty of gunpowder.

More the worries of a nervous aide, than an accurate assessment of firearm ownership in america, when 3,000 out of 3 million isn't but about a thousandth of a percent.

If colonial america was relatively unarmed, then why did the British find it neccessary to dis-arm them?

sophomoric question, to keep them from building up & stockpiling gunpowder & cannon, they sought to limit their arms so as to prevent insurrection.

And although many guns were imported from Europe, there were also guns made by individual gunsmiths here.

Certainly, a good gunsmith with a couple workers might've been able to make one musket every two weeks, so about 5,000 new muskets a year might be a high end estimate, nationally.
Still you haven't suggested where 500 - 600,000 firearms came from, prior to 1800.

hooptie: As to armories, they didn't exist to a great extent pre-revolution. Towns and cities had buildings to store powder, since it was unstable and a danger to neighbors .. Armories for the purpose of storing weapons didn't happen until mass-production of weapons generated enough inventory they COULD be stockpiled. I don't think that happened until the early 19th Century though.

What luck! I chanced upon this!: The French and Indian War {1756-63} changed things somewhat, as England exported large numbers of weapons to the colonies so that they might share the burden of defending themselves. But usually, these weapons were stored in armories, and were technically the possession of the crown, not individuals.
How well were the citizens of Boston armed in 1775? There were 1,676 houses, 2,069 families and just over 7,000 white males. Those {7,000} white males possessed 1,778 muskets, 973 bayonets, 634 pistols, and 38 blunderbusses. Since there were almost a thousand bayonets, one might reasonably assume that well over half of the muskets were passed out by the Crown, and not privately purchased. So it should be no surprise that in rural areas, gun ownership was even lower.

http://www.thehistorytrekker.com/daily-life-in-history/the-right-to-bear-arms-the-right-to-regulate-guns-both-guaranteed-by-the-second-amendment-a-guarantee-of-conflict

PS to jmg, read that link!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #72)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 06:42 PM

73. You're citing a BLOG? Bwahahaha!

The author of the blog is even anon, since I couldn't find a name. And the figures he cites (which you repeated in your post) are unsourced. Did he just pull them from his ass like Bellesiles?
Look, I know not every male owned a gun. Slaves weren't allowed to, nor were merchant seamen. Beggars and servants likely couldn't afford them. Fisherman had no need for them, which could apply to some tradesmen. But I imagine the percentage of gun ownership for traders, merchants, farmers, frontier settlers, trappers, etc was very high. And in some of those examples, where the husband was expected to be away from home for extended periods, I imagine their wives were armed as well (or they had armed servants or sons in the household).
As to the source of the guns, I already said many were from Europe. Britain had already begun mass production of guns, this was the genesis of the assembly line. They were inexpensive for the era, and very available until Britain banned their importation. Guns were so available, there were even problems with traders selling them to Native Americans...100 years before the Revolution. But not all guns were made in England. The French, Dutch, and Germans were also skilled gunsmiths. Its reasonable to assume there guns made it here, or they brought those skills when they immigrated here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #73)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 06:46 PM

74. Sailors couldn't own guns?

Glad that ain't the law anymore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glaug-Eldare (Reply #74)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 06:57 PM

75. Essentially not.

Weapons aboard ship were kept under lock, the Captain had the only key. Sailors knives were even rounded on the end so they couldn't stab each other (or the officers)...hence the traditional shape. And since sailors carried all their belongings in a trunk, they would not have any means of storing a firearm. And so much time spent at sea, they wouldn't be able to use it if left at home with family. While not specifically banned from owning one by law, they couldn't bring it aboard, and had no place to store it or opportunity to use it. So practically speaking, they couldn't own a firearm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #73)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 09:56 PM

78. whoopty do, doesn't

hooptie: You're citing a BLOG? Bwahahaha

.. your silliness is getting annoying; it wasnt a blog, it was a website. You cited david kopel, a known gunnut gun guru, so what's your point mr silliness?
.. here then is another source for essentially the same info: The British let inhabitants depart from Boston without any weapons or provisions. The British collected 1,778 muskets, 634 pistols, 973 bayonets, and 38 blunderbusses from a city of about 16,000 which by summer was reduced to 6,753 civilians
http://www.san.beck.org/13-5-WarofIndependence.html

16,000 bostonians leaving and 6,753 bostonians remained in boston, means about 9,000 departed & about 2500 guns confiscated, which is 2500 guns confiscated per 9,000 people departing, totally in line with dearborns census of 1803 where one of four americans possessed a firearm. But of course inconclusive, since bostonians may have left their firearms with the 'resistance' once they realized they'd be confiscated. Ha, fat chance at the time, you might gain a couple percent is all, thinking they'd be returned once the rebellion was subdued, dearborns census still holds fast.

hooptie: And the figures he cites are unsourced. Did he just pull them from his ass like Bellesiles?

Again, where did YOU pull your statistics about how americans garnered approx 500,000 firearms so as to be so well armed, as you put it? Pls post your sources as you advise me to, or shut up.

As to the source of the guns, I already said many were from Europe. Britain had already begun mass production of guns, this was the genesis of the assembly line. They were inexpensive for the era, and very available until Britain banned their importation.

Wheeeee, hooptie says 'many were from europe', can't stop laughing, as if that is some sort of cogent argument. Yet documentation only provides for approx 60,000 from britain for use in the french/indian wars of 1756-63, mostly garbage by 1775, and appox 120,000 from france & dutch/belgium 1775, add in another 50,000 home produced, gives at most 200,000 by 1790, where'd the other 300,000 firearms come from hooptie doo? WHERE?

hooptie: Guns were so available, there were even problems with traders selling them to Native Americans...100 years before the Revolution. But not all guns were made in England. The French, Dutch, and Germans were also skilled gunsmiths. Its reasonable to assume there guns made it here, or they brought those skills when they immigrated here.

Wow, what equivocation, silliness. You say there were 'problems' with selling guns to native americans, yeah because they couldn't readily grasp operation & preferred arrows. The BIG problem YOU have mr hooptie, is that there is no documentation of significant firearm sales to america, as you contend, outside of the 120,000 muskets provided from france/dutch/belgium at warstart1776. You asked a source, provide YOURS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #72)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 07:15 PM

98. Not to put too fine a point on it, but most folks who would later constitute the militia had rifles.

They did not have muskets (the common definition being a large caliber, smooth-bored weapon designed for infantry use; that is barely suitable for short-range mass-firing. These weapons were of little use to yeoman who preferred rifles of much longer and more accurate ranges.

Much of the fur trade in colonial times depended on the Astor and his contemporary companies distributing rifles to whites (and Native Americans) in exchange for "product." These arms (categorized as "trade" weapons) were sometimes distributed in the thousands.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Flashmann (Reply #1)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 01:52 PM

16. In error:

The operative portion of 2A is "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The "militia clause" is the federal government's stated interest in this right, to wit fulfilling its obligation to call up the militia as stated in Article I of the Constitution.

This is the "standard model" of constitutional interpretation. As Alan Dershowitz (no friend of 2A) has said, if you don't like what it says and what it protects, repeal it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #16)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 07:18 PM

77. Senator Charles Schumer...

...in a recent hearing confirmed that "the people" in the 2nd amendment is the same as "the people" in the other amendments.
He then further clarified that the first amendment doesn't protect the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater and that the 2nd amendment doesn't mean there can't be some kind of restriction for the second.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bay Boy (Reply #77)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 07:06 PM

97. "some kind of restriction(s)" are already in place...

Frankly, I support a NICS-type test for everyone. I just have my doubts if a "national" proposal will meet muster with the Commerce Clause.

I've pointed this out to folks, though there is denial: The technology of firearms available for the civilian population has been in stasis for decades. The mags may be larger, the Picatinny rails new, the materials composite, etc. But the overall technologies are basically unchanged. Restrictions should be limited to those who are criminals and mentally incompetent. Prohibitions never really work, and can make things worse.

I look forward to new approaches to keeping responsible Americans RKBA a private manner, and to keeping arms from those who shouldn't have them.

I'm glad Schumer concedes that RKBA protects "the people's" rights. Most scholars recognize this as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Flashmann (Reply #1)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 02:29 PM

19. So President Obama

stating that 2nd Amendment is an individual right makes him, in your words, a "numbskull"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lurks Often (Reply #19)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 03:39 PM

49. Logic...

...it's just so empowering.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to clydefrand (Original post)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 11:46 AM

2. The most rightwing court in 80 years rewrote the 2A in Heller.

Being all strict constructionist and everything, they ignored the clear intent, 80 years of prior decisions, etc. and decided that the whole militia thing was irrelevant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #2)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 02:30 PM

20. I agree with the strict constructionist argument you are saying

but first off we don't and should not use that standard to define all rights. IF we did that, many rights we enjoy today like abortion, privacy, freedom of electronic communication, etc....would not be around today.

I think the best understanding of the "modern second amendment" comes from Akhil Amar, who argues that the founders viewed it more collectively at the time but that post-reconstruction america redefined the constitution and that redefinition included an individual view of the second amendment for self defense. http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1250&context=lcp

Also, how familiar are you with second amendment jurisprudence from SCOTUS? The truth is that the "binding" case before heller was U.S. V Miller in 1939. That decision, which is only about 10 pages long, has a strange history. one of the most interesting facts was that Miller's legal team never submitted any briefs or showed up to the oral argument. The court only heard from one side
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=981831

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to clydefrand (Original post)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 11:48 AM

3. the BoR is a set of negative rights

thanks for playing, but the court has never adopted that view. That includes the Miller Decision in 1939 who simply said that they didn't think a short barreled shotgun should not be a constitutionally protected weapon because it was not, to the best of their knowledge, a military weapon. The lower court did rule that NFA violated the 2A.

edit to add one more thing
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/us/06firearms.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to clydefrand (Original post)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 11:48 AM

4. The Army Reserve and National Guard are decidedly not the militia, quite the opposite.

Please proceed...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #4)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 02:33 PM

21. Not according to We the people. The National Guard has specifically been codified

In federal law by representatives of the people as being THE organized Militia.

You get a bone as part of the UNorganized militia, which according to the Constitution is clearly NOT well regulated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #21)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 02:52 PM

24. Prove it with some documentation, please.

I would like, first, to indicate that depending upon the dates of this codification, the conclusion you suggest may be specious or invalid.

Second, I find it interesting that most of the former NG units and armories have been disbanded, and one wonders what that indicates....

Cheers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #24)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 03:03 PM

28. Here you go. Is this no longer US Code?

http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C13.txt


CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA

-MISC1-
Sec.
311. Militia: composition and classes.
312. Militia duty: exemptions.

-End-


-CITE-
10 USC Sec. 311 01/03/2012 (112-90)

-EXPCITE-
TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A - General Military Law
PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA

-HEAD-
Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

-STATUTE-
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #28)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 03:33 PM

42. Thank you so very much for disproving your own claim. The unorganized militia, Sec. 311/(b)/(2):

Clearly, the National Guard in not "THE MILITIA", not exclusively, and claims made or hinted at by many here that we don't now and never will need a citizens' militia because of the National Guard, fail on the face of the very statute you cite.

Which is from last year , and there was AFAIK a National Guard or Army Reserve at the time of the adoption of the Bill of Rights, so I guess you'll have to agree that the whole N.G. claim is a red herring.

ETA link to history of regulation of the National Guard: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_of_the_United_States#Laws_covering_the_National_Guard_and_the_National_Guard_of_the_United_States

I repeat, the National Guard is decidedly NOT the Militia, certainly not to the exclusion of the original intent of the term, IMHO.

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.


I suppose it's not so bad to be a member of the second class militia...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #42)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 04:06 PM

60. MY claim was exactly that...

Where up above I said:


The National Guard has specifically been codified
In federal law by representatives of the people as being THE organized Militia.

You get a bone as part of the UNorganized militia, which according to the Constitution is clearly NOT well regulated.


Hmm...seems that is exactly what the code says? What am I missing?


Anyway, yes I agree the National Guard is not the Constitutional Militias of the several States. AND that the govt had usurped powers to re-create the organized Militias that were deemed necessary into the National Guard. But we should also realize that it was the representatives of the people that enacted the Dick Act, and increase(d) the size of the standing armies etc. Obviously we the people are just fine with our greatly diminished roles, in lieu of a select Militia and huge army (all contrary to the intent of the 2nd).



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to clydefrand (Original post)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 11:49 AM

5. It is a real honor to have a dissenting supreme court Justice commenting here

 

It is also enlightening that the use Wikipedia as a law reference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to clydefrand (Original post)


Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #6)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 02:36 PM

22. But you are certainly not well regulated, unless of course

You are also in the Guard. Or trained and disciplined under some other state autority.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #22)


Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #30)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 03:24 PM

33. Not when it comes to Militias and the security of the 2nd. You are not an island.

We the people decided long ago that THE Militias would be state entities, organized & well regulated according to regulations prescribed by Congress, and trained under the authority of the state.

That original intent of course was changed, once again by the people with the creation of the National Guard and the increased responsibilities of the federal government, but who THE organized Militias are is still quite clear. It is codified in law enacted for the people by the people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #33)


Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #34)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 03:29 PM

38. Great - you are ready to serve. BUT are you a member of the Guard?

IF not you are (possibly) just a member of the unorganized milita, which means you are NOT well-regulated.

My credentials? I know how to read.

Try it sometime - there is a world of info out there, most of it just a click away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #38)


Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #41)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 03:38 PM

45. Wolverines!! nt Cheers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #38)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 03:41 PM

51. Well regulated means well equipped and in good working order, nothing more, nothing less.

But you already knew that right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ashgrey77 (Reply #51)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 03:50 PM

54. And just how were the Militias to become well-regulated?

Well lets see...

"Congress shall have the power...

"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;"



Yep - trained by the State, according to the regulations prescribed by Congress.

Here's exactly how Congress provided for it...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Militia Act of 1792, Passed May 8, 1792, providing federal standards for the organization of the Militia.

An ACT more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States.

...
"VII. And be it further enacted, That the rules of discipline, approved and established by Congress, in their resolution of the twenty-ninth of March, 1779, shall be the rules of discipline so be observed by the militia throughout the United States, except such deviations from the said rules, as may be rendered necessary by the requisitions of the Act, or by some other unavoidable circumstances. It shall be the duty of the Commanding Officer as every muster, whether by battalion, regiment, or single company, to cause the militia to be exercised and trained, agreeably to the said rules of said discipline.




SO you didn't know that?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #54)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 04:03 PM

56. Well, they clearly haven't been drilling the unorg'd militia much.

I'm still in it, and it's still as "well-regulated" as the government deems necessary. Conveniently for me, the only requirements my state places on the unorg'd militia is to obey the law and report for service when called up.


The fact also remains that common understanding and court precedent has made clear the separation between RKBA and active militia service, so this is just a bit of lighthearted fun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glaug-Eldare (Reply #56)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 04:10 PM

61. I agree...Heller made all this idle chatter. :) That was my 'militia' point...

though, that "unorganized militia" are clearly NOT "well regulated".

Hmmmm...
I do REALLY like this:

"and it's still as "well-regulated" as the government deems necessary"

THAT is a great notion, and a point I will certainly consider important. The govt has the power to prescribe what is 'well-regulated', and the unorganized militia is as organized as they want...
Hmmm...


Cheers!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #61)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 12:05 AM

83. good lord.

so glad someone finally meets your approval.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #83)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 07:21 AM

85. Hey! Welcome back, Hero! (or are you going to delete that one too??) nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #85)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 04:40 PM

90. did you edit enough to suit you?? If I am a hero then we know what that makes you -

a big fat Zero. go pound sand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #90)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 05:02 PM

91. Yep - got it JUSSST right! Though not worth responding really, when there is a 75% chance

you'll delete your own post!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #90)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 05:10 PM

93. Oh yeah - and 1 more time just for you - Wolverines!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #93)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 05:23 PM

94. was that your High School team?

One of my brothers was a cop in a small town where the high school team is the "Wolverines". My home high school team is the Tigers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #94)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 06:01 PM

96. Naa...mine were The Dukes. Hmm... The mascot did carry a sword. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #6)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 02:54 PM

25. jmg257 seems to think that your state's National Guard is the militia...

Which I think is utter claptrap.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #25)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 03:13 PM

29. Life's tough, but the people decided long ago they didn't want the responsibility

or privilege of being (in) the Militias, so they had their representatives create the National Guard to become the constitutional Militias.

Not only did the people choose to reduce their roles, their duties, they also obviously prefer a HUGE standing army, pretty much making the 2nd amendment obsolete.

You are more then welcome to join the well-regulated Militia, they do take volunteers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #25)


Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #31)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 03:27 PM

35. Yep - wrong here, wrong up there. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #35)


Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #36)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 03:32 PM

40. OK Hero, when is your next muster? What governmental regulations are you disciplined by?

Last edited Sun Feb 3, 2013, 04:22 PM - Edit history (1)

What arms do you own that you are mandated by the govt to keep for Militia service?


Or are you just another Bubba with a gun or 2, and big dreams?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #40)


Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #43)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 03:36 PM

44. Yep - like I thought -ALL bluster, NO muster, and maybe a gun or 2. Wolverines! nt

Last edited Tue Feb 5, 2013, 12:39 PM - Edit history (1)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #44)


Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #48)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 03:43 PM

52. Shit, no. Owning guns is fine - have all you want. It's the illusion that you have some special

immunity because of a militia related intent in the Constitution from 250 years ago which is goofy. And the notion that you are all set and ready to go to secure all our freedoms 'cause you own an AR or some such.

I'll pass...have one of your Bubba militia buddies pucker up instead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #52)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 12:03 AM

82. I have no illusions especially when it comes to you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #82)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 07:24 AM

86. Good for you! Hmm...so is THIS /\ post a keeper?

Last edited Mon Feb 4, 2013, 09:54 AM - Edit history (1)

From all the baloney you self-deleted, its obvious there is more of mustard then of muster about you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #86)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 04:39 PM

89. like you really give a shit what I do. go play with glaugedare. silly child.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #89)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 05:06 PM

92. Aww - you found someone else to kiss your ass already?

How is Bubba anyway? 'mmmm...that's nice...' Make sure your AR doesn't get jealous now!


Actually don't give a shit, but you are amusing, so I'll just enjoy some more laughs at your expense.

At least until you delete 3/4 of your own posts again!




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #92)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 05:42 PM

95. well, laugh like the hyena you are then.

ignorant POS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #95)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 07:42 PM

100. And here I thought you and Glaug-El were snow-shoveling "militia" buddies.

"Such a spot on post....Really. Excellent post"

Sorry - I didn't mean to cause a distraction between you guys. But as even he noted in the post you love so, "the unorganized militia Is not well suited for warfare".

Which is what I've been saying all along, so...thanks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #25)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 07:54 PM

101. Try reading the Militia Act of 1903 sometime.

The National Guard is defined as the organized militia of the United States.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to clydefrand (Original post)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 12:16 PM

7. Quite correct



A militia (pron.: /mɨˈlɪʃə/), or irregular army, generally refers to an army or other fighting force that is composed of non-professional fighters; citizens of a nation or subjects of a state or government that can be called upon to enter a combat situation, as opposed to a professional force of regular soldiers or, historically, members of the fighting nobility.

Absolutely true and as it should be.

Called by various names in different countries such as; the Army Reserve, National Guard, or state defense forces.

Here in the US they are called "The People".



From Federalist #46 by James Madison (principle author of the Bill of Rights):
"To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops."
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa46.htm

This half a million citizens referenced by Madison is approximately the number of free adult males under 50 years old. Clearly this number represented to Madison the entire free population of the country actually able to "keep and bear arms".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to clydefrand (Original post)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 12:33 PM

8. You may wish to read this document at some point

97th Congress
2d Session COMMITTEE PRINT
THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS
REPORT
OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION
OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE NINETY-SEVENTH CONGRESS
http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/87senrpt.pdf

I do not know why it is not referenced more often- it was supported by the majority and minority of the subcommitee.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to clydefrand (Original post)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 12:47 PM

9. There are 3 entities in the 2nd Amendment

The state, the militia, and the people.

"...the right of the people..."


To me, it says that, so the state will have a militia composed of people who are familiar and competent with arms, that people can own such arms. This way, when the militia is activated, at a minimum there will be people that know how to use them, and also may in fact bring their own guns to the fight.

FWIW

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #9)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 03:16 PM

32. that is my understanding of it also.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #9)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 01:52 PM

88. And

 

that the people/militia will be armed similarly to that of the state.

And NO I am not talking about private citizens owning nuclear weapons, sarin gas, or B-2 bombers. But I do think anything categorized as small arms should be fair game for private ownership.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to clydefrand (Original post)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 12:55 PM

10. So, what would be an example of a pure 2A violation?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glaug-Eldare (Reply #10)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 01:17 PM

13. If we want to go by the Amendment,

then lets use only those weapons that were availabe then: flint-locks/musle loaded rifles

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to clydefrand (Reply #13)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 01:26 PM

14. Got a serious answer?

The 2A is obviously not limited to muskets, the same way 1A is not limited to quill pens and 4A is not limited to physical intrusion. Can you give me an example of a government action that would violate the 2nd Amendment? Just to clarify in advance, Equal Protection violations are not what I'm looking for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glaug-Eldare (Reply #14)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 02:55 PM

26. Pens and quills...

An excellent rebuttal... The First amendment clearly has been applied to include websites, telephones, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #26)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 05:42 PM

69. And video/movies,

Vinyl/CDs, PA systems, TV and radio....all unforseen by the Constitutional authors, yet protected by the 1st A.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to clydefrand (Reply #13)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 07:28 PM

99. If we go by the Amendment (I), let's use only those "presses" that were available then. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to clydefrand (Original post)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 12:59 PM

11. PHEW..

 

Good thing I'm part of the organized and unorganized militia..





The role of militia, also known as military service and duty, in the United States is complex and has transformed over time. The term militia can be used to describe any number of groups within the United States. Primarily, these fall into:

The organized militia created by the Militia Act of 1903, which split from the 1792 Uniform Militia forces, and consist of State militia forces, notably the National Guard and the Naval Militia. The National Guard however, is not to be confused with the National Guard of the United States, which is a federally recognized reserve military force, although the two are linked.

Constitution - Article II - The Executive Branch Section 2 - Clause 1:The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States when called into the actual service of the United States. ...

The reserve militia or unorganized militia, also created by the Militia Act of 1903 which presently consist of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who are not members of the National Guard or Naval Militia.(that is, anyone who would be eligible for a draft). Former members of the armed forces up to age 65 are also considered part of the "unorganized militia" per Sec 313 Title 32 of the US Code.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_%28United_States%29

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to clydefrand (Original post)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 01:46 PM

15. It doesn't restrict the RKBA to the militia, though.

The language simply doesn't do that...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #15)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 01:57 PM

17. And you are simply correct. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #15)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 03:51 PM

55. plus a brazillion and beyond to infinity,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Puha Ekapi (Reply #18)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 02:56 PM

27. Oh Snap... (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to clydefrand (Original post)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 03:29 PM

37. to make a very simplistic response (and I admit that it does not do the debate justice)

Owning a gun for any other reason IS NOT in the 2nd amendment.


And a right to an abortion is specifically mentioned in what amendment? the right to privacy?

The constitution can be interpreted to protect many things which are not explicitely codified in the explicit words. In fact, if we took your view our rights would be nothing like we see today. The founders never intended for the constitution to apply to the states, and even after the passage of the 14th amendment, courts for 50 years still held that the constitution only was a limit on federal powers. Now such argument is silly today. In truth, it is public consensus/opinion that ultimately directs the way the court goes. Evidenceo of that can be seen in Plessy V furgeson, Brown v Board of ed, Griswold v Ct, etc. During the founding era, many laws were on the books that anti-homosexual such as sodomy and moral stature laws. Today such laws are clearly held unconstitutional. With that view in mind, the court holding that the second amendment confers a moderately limited right to own a firearm for self detfense is a no-brainer. This is inline with the overwhelming majority of american opinion. The court generally tends not rule against public opinion on fundemental person rights, especially in such a way that it causes a 180 degree change. I think the best example of that is Roe V Wade, which despite all the controversy (which is far far far more than Heller v D.C.), is still standing 40 years later. The courts may cut around its edges, limit it, minimalize it, but i think it would be stretch to say the court will outright overturn it. The court doesnt want to be the center of protests

Also, the militia view of the amendment is really a mid 20th century development. Before that there was very little discussion on the second amendments meaning. It was after U.S. V Miller in 1939 that lower courts started using the "militia view". That decision was in reality inconclusive (Some scholars can even point out court decisions that cite provisions in miller that do not actually exist) and very vague. Lower courts in essence, over-read miller to mean more than it really was. So when people say that "heller overturned settled legal precedent over the past 80 years", they are truly over-reaching. If this topic does interest you I suggest you look at pre-heller second amendment cases. You will see that even among the lower courts there was not widespread agreement on this issue.

IMO, I think the whole decision came down to this (heller)- There is no good historical evidence that conclusively settles the debate so we are going to decide this on public opinion. This has been done throughout our history and generally leads to a favorable conclusion

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bossy22 (Reply #37)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 04:05 PM

58. Miller 1939 redux 2013

bossy: I think the best understanding of the "modern second amendment" comes from Akhil Amar, who argues that the founders viewed it more collectively at the time but that post-reconstruction america redefined the constitution and that redefinition included an individual view of the second amendment for self defense.

That is a very good take on it; the 'schism' between the militia & individual interpretation began earlier tho, by 1830's the 'unorganized militia' was officially spoken of. Good show bossy, do you believe it? I think you do from what you wrote, so it's quite sequitur that the original intent was for 2ndA to be constitutionally based on militia service.

but you lose ground here bossy: ..the "binding" case before heller was U.S. V Miller in 1939. That decision.. has a strange history. one of the most interesting facts was that Miller's legal team never submitted any briefs or showed up to the oral argument. The court only heard from one side

Layton was the other defendant along with miller; layton was still alive when the court heard the case & the decision applied to frank layton, which diminishes your argument.
But your argument has become part of the progun tapdance, to wiggle out of the strong wording of the 1939 supreme court in miller.

johnston: That includes the Miller Decision in 1939 who simply said that they didn't think a short barreled shotgun should not be a constitutionally protected weapon because it was not, to the best of their knowledge, a military weapon. The lower court did rule that NFA violated the 2A.

Is that simply all the 1939 Supreme Court SIMPLY said regarding miller case?
Here, to refresh your memory from what I posted couple weeks ago:

SCOTUS, 1939: 1) "The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power - 'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union'.... With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view."
2) "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.."


Those two passages were from the UNANIMOUS Supreme Court ruling in 1939 (8-0, one judge recused self since just appt'd)... these sound clearly like a militia based interpretation of the 2ndA, written in vernacular of the time;
Prudent people might wonder why, if the 1939 justices felt 2ndA an individual RKBA, at least one of them wouldn't have objected to the above wordings, 'hold on fellow justices, look at the way we've worded our ruling & opinions, future generations are going to think we ruled for a militia rights interpretation.'
Yet not one single 1939 Justice objected - they were satisfied that what they wrote was fit & proper, and expressed their opinion of what the Second Amendment entailed, a right incumbent upon a well regulated militia. (All nine too, since the recused oliver didn't later object & he heard most the case).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bossy22 (Reply #37)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 04:39 PM

63. mutually exclusive ref org'd & unorg'd

glaug: I'm still in it {unorg'd militia I presume}, and it's still as "well-regulated" as the government deems necessary. Conveniently for me, the only requirements my state places on the unorg'd militia is to obey the law and report for service when called up.

Pls cite a source for this, where the unorg'd militia are obliged to show up when called up; the last time the unorg'd militia was activated was in 1942 wwII due to japanese invasion hysteria on the west coast, and only abou 5,000 of the 'unorg'd militia' showed up, mostly wwI vets. I've not heard of any sanctions applied to the other millions affected (didn't apply nationally just regionally).

To Raider you are wrong, one cannot belong to both the organized militia and the UNorg'd militia at the same time, reread rules, quite explicit. One is either organized, or an unorganized, uh, thingie with or without a gun.

bossy: ..the militia view of the amendment is really a mid 20th century development. Before that there was very little discussion on the second amendments meaning. It was after U.S. V Miller in 1939 that lower courts started using the "militia view".

Subjective,it's gotten more rabid during the latter 20th century; states in the early 1800's patterned their state constitutions (RKBAs) sometimes following a militia based right, sometimes an individual right.

Scalia ruled in 2008: "We have found only one early 19th-century commentator (being Benjamin Oliver] who clearly conditioned the right to keep and bear arms upon service in the militia -- and he recognized that the prevailing view was to the contrary."
What Benjamin Oliver wrote ~1830: "The provision of the constitution, declaring the right of the people to keep and bear arms, &c. was probably intended to apply to the right of the people to bear arms for such {militia-related} purposes only, and not to prevent congress or the legislatures of the different states from enacting laws to prevent the citizens from always going armed. A different construction however has been given to it."


That decision {miller}was in reality inconclusive (Some scholars can even point out court decisions that cite provisions in miller that do not actually exist) and very vague.

This is bs mainly, pro gun propaganda & pro gun 'scholars' which nit pick & try to diminish references to miller by lower courts - it matters little as to what lower courts said etc.. Scalia misread dozens of references in his rulings, or applied irrelavant refs.
.. The findings of SCOTUS 1939 at the time were for a militia based RKBA, that is how people interpreted the supreme court ruling from 1939 till about early 1970's when the nra & gunnuts started creating the 'miller tapdance' you are so enamoured with.

Lower courts in essence, over-read miller to mean more than it really was. So when people say that "heller overturned settled legal precedent over the past 80 years", they are truly over-reaching. If this topic does interest you I suggest you look at pre-heller second amendment cases. You will see that even among the lower courts there was not widespread agreement on this issue.

This is, as politely as possible, bs, straight from the 2nd amendment mythology bible. What you call 'over reaching' was in fact the truth of the matter.

Yes there was widespread agreement on the 2ndA issue, not absolute, but widespread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #63)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 05:01 PM

66. Dunno about federal law,

but under Md. Code, Pub. Safety § 13-701(b), if the Governor calls out the unorg'd militia, those who fail to appear are subject to courts-martial.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #63)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 11:37 PM

79. Jimmy...

 

To Raider you are wrong, one cannot belong to both the organized militia and the UNorg'd militia at the same time, reread rules, quite explicit. One is either organized, or an unorganized, uh, thingie with or without a gun.


Why you gotta to take all the wind out of my sails brother....Here I was thinking I was covered....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to raidert05 (Reply #79)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 11:40 PM

80. peace in our time

raider: Why you gotta to take all the wind out of my sails brother....Here I was thinking I was covered....

peace brother; bt2 jimmy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to clydefrand (Original post)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 03:32 PM

39. So lets get this straight

The constitution mentions a "well-regulated militia" but the only part the gun fanatics pay attention to is "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed."

Kind of like Fox News. The gun fanatics only take a part of a sentence or phrase and use it to their benefit often taking it out of context and completely disregarding the other "important" part.

So how many of these folks swaggering around with guns are actually part of some "official" militia? And I don't mean one of those right-wingnut encampments.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rightsideout (Reply #39)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 03:39 PM

50. Unless your the amendment is written

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed as long as they are part of a well regulated militia" then your argument falls flat

You can't say that the 1st clause restricts the 2nd clause will 100% certainty (there are arguments for and against such view)

Courts have taken more expansive views of constitutional provisions than are explicitely codified. Why is the 2nd amendment any different

I find it very interesting that many on this forums will interpret the second amendment in such a strict manner but not any other amendments. Why? Well because if you did that you could support Roe V Wade, a right to privacy, etc...Many of the rights we enjoy today are not necessarily written explicitely in the text of the constitution. Yet some how we find them......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to clydefrand (Original post)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 03:38 PM

46. I recently had dinner with friends in DC.

They'd recently moved into the neighborhood, and during their first(?) winter, they were caught in a severe snowstorm which made their streets and sidewalks impassable. While they were trying to decide what to do, there was a knock at their front door. When they opened it, they saw just about every able-bodied man and woman in the neighborhood with shovels, clearing the snow and checking each house for volunteers or people in trouble. They were not being coordinated by the Army, the police, or the Mayor. They were citizens who saw a need and addressed it. To me, that sums up exactly what the militia is -- private citizens acting for the welfare of themselves and their community. Sometimes it takes shovels, and sometimes it takes firearms.

Not that the militia has anything to do with the individual right to keep and bear arms -- that question was settled long ago, by popular consensus and court opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glaug-Eldare (Reply #46)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 05:26 PM

67. snow shovellers aren't the unorg'd militia

glaug: .. just about every able-bodied man and woman in the neighborhood with shovels, clearing the snow and checking each house for volunteers or people in trouble. They were not being coordinated by the Army, the police, or the Mayor. They were citizens who saw a need and addressed it. To me, that sums up exactly what the militia is -- private citizens acting for the welfare of themselves and their community. Sometimes it takes shovels, and sometimes it takes firearms.

pffft, what has that got to do with anything of substance? they were concerned citizens, volunteers, not armed posse comitatus aka the unorg'd militia.
. .what you refer to, I suppose on a stretch, could be the 'inactivated unorganized militia'. Ha, tadaaa. The Unorg'd militia has been referred to in the past, as the 'couch potato militia', true!

The final stage of Army mobilization, known as "activation of the unorganized militia" would effectively place all able bodied males in the service of the U.S. Army. The last time an approximation of this occurred was during the American Civil War when the Confederate States of America activated the "Home Guard" in 1865, drafting all males, regardless of age or health, into the Confederate Army
http://armyusa.org/content/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2251&Itemid=792

Governors are disinclined to call up 'unor'd militia' since it would essentially be calling up armed vigilantes or posse comitatus, armed men with little training in arrest & detention & subduing resistors, & possibly trigger prone.

There was a lesser call up as I've noted elsewhere, during wwII, about 5,000 unorg'd militiamen mostly wwI vets:
.. this might be some of them: (Fort Stevens Oregon) during World War II, when there were approximately 2500 men stationed there. To house all the troops, new barracks were constructed. At Fort Stevens, Battery 245, a new gun emplacement, was armed with two 6-inch rifles that had a range of about fifteen miles, almost double the range of the 10-inch rifles. Also a 90mm AMTB battery was placed on the south jetty.
On the night of June 21, 1942, Fort Stevens saw its only action when a Japanese submarine (the I-25) fired 5.5 inch shells in the vicinity of the fort. The shelling caused no damage. The Fort Commander refused to allow return fire. The incident made Fort Stevens the only installation to be attacked by an enemy since the War of 1812


The commander, I think an unorg'd officer, so to speak, thought it the invasion & didn't want to reveal gun positions. A golden opportunity to sink an ijn sub, fizzled.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #67)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 06:03 PM

71. I see the militia as a much broader thing than you do, I think.

Last edited Mon Feb 4, 2013, 01:01 PM - Edit history (1)

I absolutely believe that the shovelers were fulfilling the role of the militia, as it was necessary at that time and at that place. When those men and women cleared the streets and checked on their neighbors, they were protecting public safety and welfare when the ordinary instruments of government were not yet able to do so.

You're partly right -- the unorganized militia is not well-suited for warfare. However, the role of the militia (read: the people) goes far beyond warfare or mandatory activation by the Governor. It includes disaster relief, first aid, search-and-rescue, evacuation, &c.

EDIT: I also believe it includes the armed defense of self, others, community, and the state, if necessary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glaug-Eldare (Reply #71)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 12:01 AM

81. such a spot on post, I wish I could rec it. really. excellent post.

bravo and well done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #67)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 09:28 PM

103. I think you need to look up the meaning of..

...Posse Comitatus.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glaug-Eldare (Reply #46)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 11:44 AM

104. Matters of constitutional law are never 'settled'.

That's why the amendment process exists. You would think it wouldn't be so difficult for people to remember this seeing as the part of the Constitution we are talking about is itself an amendment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gcomeau (Reply #104)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 12:29 PM

105. Perhaps so, but it's one I'm remarkably confident is not going away.

I don't believe any amendment would be accepted that abridges the right to keep and bear arms -- I can almost believe one would explicitly expand the right, but this country generally takes a dim view of amending the Constitution to remove civil rights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glaug-Eldare (Reply #105)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 12:51 PM

106. Perhaps in return, however...

...the appropriate debate to have is surely about whether the law *should* say something, not whether the law currently says something. The latter is a rather uninteresting debate.

I don't care if the Constitution currently says something. That's boring. That's like telling me the sky is blue. Fine... but it's not a topic of conversation that has a lot of appeal. The question is whether the Constitution is *right to say it* or if it should be changed.

All too often, the attitude I see taken is instead to treat the Constitution as holy writ or something. The sacred word passed down from the Founders, good grief don't touch unless you absolutely have to it you might desecrate it!!!!!

This simply ignores the fact that the Founders bloody well WANTED people to change it over time. Hell, Jefferson thought it should be re-written from scratch every single generation. He would most likely be horrified at the attitude most people take towards it today... unthinking veneration of it, constant appeals to what the "original intent of the Founders" was... the thing was written to work for people living in a relatively sparsely populated 18th century nation. There was no expectation that it should keep getting applied the exact same way for centuries on end as the world drastically changed around it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to clydefrand (Original post)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 03:38 PM

47. Who makes up the militia?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ileus (Reply #47)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 08:09 PM

102. In the 18th century? Or today?

Hint: It's changed. Unless I missed where every able bodied white male is required to turn out for regular muster and training these days?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to clydefrand (Original post)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 03:47 PM

53. Sweden follows the spirit of the 2nd Amendment better than we do

The best example of a country that follows the 2nd Amendment to the letter is Sweden.

Their citizens serve in a state sponsored militia that is well-regulated (organized). They serve for a period of time, a couple years, I think. They can keep the gun after they serve, I think, but can only keep one gun. I'm not sure of all the regulations but there are alot of rules. There aren't a bunch of Swedes roaming around the country swaggering around with guns. It's highly regulated.

What Sweden does currently is what our founding fathers were actually thinking. Not the nonsense we have today.

But also know, that although Sweden's militia is regulated, they also have the highest gun fatality rate than any other European country. Which also proves more guns equals more gun deaths.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rightsideout (Reply #53)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 04:04 PM

57. I believe you might be thinking about Switzerland, not Sweden....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rightsideout (Reply #53)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 04:06 PM

59. I think you are mistaken the place for Switzerland

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Switzerland
Yes, the assault rifle is converted to semi auto only and is yours to keep after your time. Of course, officers and others who would be issued a pistol instead of the rifle would get to keep the pistol.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Switzerland

about privately owned guns
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland#Buying_guns

Although the empire was very good to me, I personally think the founders wanted a Swiss type military instead of a large active duty force. We should have a standing Navy, Coast Guard, and Air Force large enough to protect our shores and use in humanitarian aid, but the army should be basically a militia. Dismantling the MIC and empire would save more than enough money to use for infrastructure, schools, single payer healthcare, and still let Paris Hilton keep her tax cuts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #59)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 05:56 PM

70. Details, details... It matters not.

Someplace somebody does something different, it's one of those "S" countries.

No, not Swaziland or the Sudan, it's a "real" country with actual educated people... I think it was Sweden, maybe....



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to clydefrand (Original post)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 04:22 PM

62. Well, that totally explains why it specifies 'THE PEOPLE'.

Guess the founders just fucked that one up, huh?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to clydefrand (Original post)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 07:00 PM

76. for state security. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to clydefrand (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 07:53 AM

87. That horse is very dead. You can quite beating it.

It isn't going to get up and let you ride it to a gun-free America.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread