Why Is Gun Ownership An Absolute Right, But Free Speech Is Not?

[BLUSH]

The Supreme Court says you can't yell fire in a crowded theater.

Why doesn't the same apply to the second amendment, considering the qualifier "a well-regulated militia?" If you're not in the militia, why do you have any right to bear arms?


edit:

Since the Second Amendment right "to keep and bear arms" applies only to the right of the State to maintain a militia and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right of an individual to possess a firearm. . .

—United States v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103.


It is abundantly clear both from the discussions of this amendment contemporaneous with its proposal and those of learned writers since that this amendment, unlike those providing for free speech and freedom of religion, was not adopted with individual rights in mind, but as a protection for the States in the maintenance of their militia organizations against possible encroachments by the federal power.

—Tot v. United States, 131 F. 261


The courts have consistently held that the second amendment only confers; a collective right of keeping and bearing arms which must bear "a reasonable relationship to a well-regulated militia."

—U.S. v. Johnson, 497 F.2d 548


MORE HERE:

http://www.bluecorncomics.com/2ndamend.htm

[rinsd]

1. Gun ownership is an absolute right?

Where?

[BLUSH]

3. That's what the NRA argues

nt

[rinsd]

5. So? Do you treat rhetoric from an interest group as fact?

[BLUSH]

12. That's the NRA's argument.

If only the Supreme Court would debunk it in the way they did in 1919 when they said the first amendment right to free speech was not absolute.

[rinsd]

23. Are you aware that the SC has ruled several times that restrictions on this right are ok?

[Alexander]

56. The Supreme Court DID debunk it. Books are your friend.

Your post would be spot on, if it was 100 years ago.

Right now, you just look uninformed.

[benEzra]

233. Gun owners support plenty of restrictions, even the NRA does.

for example, possession of any automatic weapon (yes, even real AK-47's and Uzi's) is a 10-year Federal felony, unless you are police, military, or obtain Federal authorization (BATFE Form 4), under the National Firearms Act (which the NRA supported in 1934 and still supports, AFAIK).

In most states, you can't carry a gun in public without a license, and in my state (NC) that requires passing a Federal and state background check, an FBI fingerprint check, a mental health records check, lots of $$$ in fees, a training class using a state-issued curriculum, AND a demonstration of competence actually shooting.

[Redbear]

2. It is not an absolute right

Far from it. The 2nd Amend has never been used to overturn any gun law.

[qdemn7]

28. WRONG!!! Parker v. the District of Columbia

I Guess You Haven't Been keeping up with current events have you? http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/hotline/2007/04/restoring-second-amendment-in-parker-v.php

[jgraz]

147. You want court decisions? We got court decisions.

"Since the Second Amendment right 'to keep and bear arms' applies only to the right of the state to maintain a militia, and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right of an individual to possess a firearm." (Stevens v. U.S., United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, 1971).

"Construing according to its plain meaning, it seems clear that the right to bear arms is inextricably connected to the preservation of a militia . . . We conclude that the right to keep and bear handguns is not guaranteed by the Second Amendment." (Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 1982)

"Making a firearm without approval may be subject to criminal sanction, as is possession of an unregistered firearm and failure to pay the tax on one, 26 U.S.C. 5861, 5871." (UNITED STATES, PETITIONER v. THOMPSON/CENTER ARMS COMPANY, on writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the federal circuit, June 8, 1992)

"We follow our sister circuits in holding that the Second Amendment is a right held by the states and does not protect the possession of a weapon by a private citizen." (Hickman v. City of Los Angeles, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, April 5, 1996)

Parker v. D.C. flies in the face of all of these established precedents. Unfortunately, you gun nuts are now rooting for George Bush's Supreme Court to uphold this ridiculous decision. The NRA is even lobbying for the repeal of the D.C. gun ban so they don't have to gamble with bringing this ruling before the SCOTUS.

[qdemn7]

148. And the NRA is wrong

I WANT this to go to SCOTUS, I bet THIS court affirms the decision. And all those are APPEALS Court Decisions, let's get SCOTUS to settle the issue once and for all.

[jgraz]

149. Lucky your hero Alito is there for you

So what if a few women die of sepsis from crappy abortions? You get to keep your metal penis. Yay for you!!

A SCOTUS decision in your favor will settle NOTHING. The D.C. decision is such a blatant violation of stare decisis that they almost certainly will not be able to uphold it in full. And if they do? Congratulations! You're now part of the militia. You might want to check with Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution to see who your Commander-in-Chief is. Don't forget to salute!

[baldguy]

245. Arm the insane! It's their God-given right to shoot & kill anyone their inner voices tell them too!

[thereismore]

4. It's not an absolute right. Defending yourself is. However, does it mean

that you can keep any means (like guns) around you in the event you need to defend your life? I don't think so.

[whoneedstickets]

240. There are NO Absolute rights, NONE....

Sorry, i posted this below but intended to respond to you here:


The term absolute right is complete nonsense and no such thing has EVER been recognized by the court. The highest level of rights the court recognizes is a fundamental right. Even these are subject to restriction using a 'strict scrutiny / compelling state interest' criteria. Speech can be regulated for the potential to incite physical harm (fighting words), political instability (seditious speech) and moral degradation (obscenity).

The second amendment, were it to be ruled a personal right, would be subject to the same standards and IS VERY MUCH subject to limitations for public safety, child safety and crime limitation purposes as policy makers see fit so long as they can assert a compelling interest-- WHICH SHOULD NOT BE HARD given the lethality of firearms!

The right of self-defense is not absolute because reasonable limits on the proportion of force used to resist harm have been identified. Barring those states that have passed a 'Castle Doctrine' law, one has a responsibility to flee before using force in virtually all instances (even in one's home! see Castle Doctrine for exceptions NOTE that the fact that CD laws had to be enacted reflects the fact that self-defense is a limited right!). If escape is possible, violent self defense is unjustifiable. The right is NOT Absolute.

The right to Life is not even absolute as the state has decreed that right forfeit in the instance of a capital crime.

The claim of an Absolute right it only a rhetorical ploy to avoid having to consider the reasonable limits on a right. To admit a fundamental right is to recognize that there is a continuum of possible legal standards that could result in MORE restriction on rights than currently exist. The obscenity laws are instructive because they adhere to a 'prevailing local standard' criteria which if applied to firearms could mean that local jurisdictions could ban them!

[aikoaiko]

6. your analogy is muddled

You can own anything you want to deliver speech (a telephone, a printing press, a computer, etc), but you are not allowed to cause harm with your speech with those devices.

You should be able to own and bear firearms as per the 2nd amendment, but you're not allowed to cause harm with your gun.

[BLUSH]

7. Ownership if you are part of a militia

If you're in the guard or the army, sure you should have a gun.

[aikoaiko]

11. your definition is narrower than federal law,

there is an organized and unorganized militia defined in federal law.

I'm in the unorganized militia. thank you very much.

[LanternWaste]

126. Wasn't there a 1939 decision...

Wasn't there a 1939 decision that re-defined the militia as the U.S. National Guard?

[jgraz]

145. fantasize all you want, you don't have a legal leg to stand on

"Since the Second Amendment right 'to keep and bear arms' applies only to the right of the state to maintain a militia, and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right of an individual to possess a firearm." (Stevens v. U.S., United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, 1971).

"Construing according to its plain meaning, it seems clear that the right to bear arms is inextricably connected to the preservation of a militia . . . We conclude that the right to keep and bear handguns is not guaranteed by the Second Amendment." (Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 1982)

"Making a firearm without approval may be subject to criminal sanction, as is possession of an unregistered firearm and failure to pay the tax on one, 26 U.S.C. 5861, 5871." (UNITED STATES, PETITIONER v. THOMPSON/CENTER ARMS COMPANY, on writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the federal circuit, June 8, 1992)

"We follow our sister circuits in holding that the Second Amendment is a right held by the states and does not protect the possession of a weapon by a private citizen." (Hickman v. City of Los Angeles, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, April 5, 1996)

Also you may want to check with Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution. You might not be so eager to declare yourself part of the militia once you realize who your commander-in-chief will be. Don't forget to salute.

[TX-RAT]

36. Ownership if you are part of a militia

And a militia is all citizens between the ages of 17 and 45. That's a big militia!

[jgraz]

8. If only Mr Cho were just shouting "FIRE" in a crowded classroom

I'm assuming you're able to distinguish between the damage caused by harmful use of speech and the damage caused by harmful use of guns.

Maybe this is at the core of the gun-nut agenda: they can't distinguish between the first and second amendments. The solution to "bad" speech is more speech, so the solution to "bad" gun owners should be more gun owners.

Perhaps the only gun regulation we need is that anyone who believes the above statement is deemed too stupid to own a gun.

[BLUSH]

9. Was Mr. Cho a member of the militia?

Are hunters members of any militia? If not, where is this absolute right to own a gun?

Why is the "well-regulated militia" phrase always glossed over or just completely ignored?

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

10. Because it doesn't mean wht you think it means. It means what it meant THEN

Also, Miltia does not mean what you think it means. See the US Code for some homework.

Here's a hint, "Armed Forces" are defined in the US Code as well. See if they mean the same thing.

[BLUSH]

14. Whatever the militia is

it's WELL-REGULATED.

If you want to own a gun, you should be part of the milita, and how you use that gun should be determined by those regulating that militia.

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

19. I see we didn't do our homework

If so you would understand both terms are not what you think they are.

Here's a few hints:
1) Google US Code militia
2) Google US Code armed forces
3) Read Federalist #29

You will see that A) Militia does not equal "armed Forces" B) The term "well-regulated" had nothing to do with who controlls it.

[BLUSH]

24. who said armed forces?

Ever hear of the national guard ... the state's militia?

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

25. Google is your friend.

Try it. You will be surprised.

[BLUSH]

33. please see the edit to my original post

Also see the link I provided.

Please tell me how the author is wrong?

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

45. The author is wrong in using US v Miller as the basis for his entire argument

Nowhere in Miller is the word STATE associated with Militia or National Guard.

The case was about the weapon, not the need to belong to a militia. In fact, the Miller case was remanded until evidence could be provided that the weapon in question could contribute to "the efficiency of a well-regulated militia." In other words, if you can prove that this weapon can be used by a militia, then it is not illegal.

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" 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. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. 307 U.S. at 178.

[zagging]

99. He's wrong on at least one critical point

From your link:

"Once you have constitutional government," Cornell points out, "you have no right of revolution anymore."

That statement is most certainly in opposition to:

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

[jgraz]

29. I'll grant that, as long as you also stick to what firearms meant THEN

Go ahead, buy all the muzzle-loaders you want.

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

30. Problem is it doesn't say "firearms"

Why don't we stick to hand operated printing presses and town cries as well?

Why is the 1st adaptable to today and not the 2nd?

[Old and In the Way]

38. The power to inform is not quite the same as the power to kill.

Most assuredly, the internet has vastly increased the power to inform. The science of killing has also dramatically changed since 1776. The right killing technology in the hands of an individual can easily nuetralize the freedoms of many people. Just ask the families of the victims at Virginia Tech.

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

46. Tell that to the Tutsis and the Jews.

Rabid ideas spread through writings and media use.

[Old and In the Way]

48. And without weapons to enforce those ideas those victims would have been killed...how?

"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me."

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

52. And without weapons they would not have been stopped.

N/T

[Old and In the Way]

60. And without weapons they would not have started.

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

63. Machetes played no role at all did they?

No wars before the invention of firearms were there?

[jgraz]

74. There were no mass shootings/suicides before the invention of firearms

Your arguments are getting more and more ridiculous.

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

78. And there were no plane crashes before airplanes were invented

What is your point?

ad hominem 2 logic 0

[CJ5]

114. Wrong

Man has been killing man since the begining of time.

[jgraz]

122. I didn't say killing, I said shooting

Which is key. Swords, axes and clubs don't let you take down 32 people from a distance and then quickly check out yourself. The blaze of glory spree is an invention of modern technology.

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

186. But I'm sure a well aimed catapult would

[jgraz]

39. Once again, the differerence between speech and bullets

and the interest of the state to regulate the latter. In fact, what ever your definition of the militia, you can't deny that congress is given explicit power over them.

Article I, Section 8

(The Congress shall have 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;

Now I'm sure the gun-nuts have some way to slither out of this one. I just can't wait to hear it.

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

47. It still doesn't define "militia"

Which is done in the US Code.

Slither slither slither

As for the difference betweenspeech and bullets. Hah Speech is just as deadly. See Hutus v Tutsis, see Nazis v Jews.

[jgraz]

64. defining "militia" is beside the point

no matter how it's defined, the Congress has the power to regulate it, include what arms it may use. Whatever power is not given to the Congress devolves to the states -- or did you skip that part of Constitutional Law 101?

Your "free speech kills" argument is barely worth responding to. No Jew or Tutsi was ever killed by being talked to.

Y'know, it would be a helluva lot less work for you if you quit trying to refute obvious logic and just admit that you really like your BIG METAL PENIS. At least that's an argument that I can understand.

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

73. Actually it would be easier if you just admitted

that you suffer from a retarded sense of emotional and sexual maturity.

I love ad hominem attacks.

It matters in that there are two classes of "militia" as defined in the US Code.

My penis is rather fine thank you. A proud specimen to be envied and displayed in an episode of Rome with the best of them.

[jgraz]

79. Not ad hominem at all

I'm not using the fact that you love your big shiny cock as a way to refute your arguments, I'm just pointing out that it's probably why you're making so many easily refuted bullshit claims.

You have yet to address any substance of my previous post. There can be two kinds of militia, there can be 20 kinds of militia. Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power to regulate them all.

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

80. Within the confines of the Constitution which limits Congress' power

[jgraz]

82. In what way?

How does the Constitution limit Congress' power to regulate the militia(s)? Spell it out.

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

84. Congress' Power is defined and LIMITED by the Constitution.

The power of the Federal govt. over certain items is limited within the very document that gives it its power in the articles and in the amendments.

Congress does not arm the "unorganized" militia. But it cannot keep it from arming itself. I am sure no one would have any objections if they chose to treat us as Swiss treat their "unorganized" militia, by arming them.

Its a nice day, I think I might grab my guns and go for a ride in my Red Convertible Vette with my big Rottweiler to see if the college girls will look at me.

[jgraz]

86. You bring up the Swiss?

"I am sure no one would have any objections if they chose to treat us as Swiss treat their "unorganized" militia, by arming them."

Look how they actually handle their militia. They give them bullets in government-sealed boxes with high penalties for opening them outside of a national emergency. You're damn right I woulnd't object if we handled our militia that way.

"Its a nice day, I think I might grab my guns (penis) and go for a ride in my Red Convertible Vette (big penis) with my big Rottweiler (hairy penis) to see if the college girls will look at me. (not a chance)"

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

169. So a murderer will be stopped by a do not open unless Natl Emergency seal?

Point is, allot of people have weapons and ammunition provided by the government in their households and there is little problem.

By the way, you seem to be talking of my penis more than I do. Guess Freud was right about a fear of weapons.

[jgraz]

176. Yeah, gun-boy, quote Freud at me

That's not ironic at all.

And since you bring up fear, answer me this: what happened to you to turn you into such a scared little bunny that you're practically wetting yourself at the thought of not being able to carry your little toy around wherever you go? Why are you so shit-scared of leaving your house unarmed?

The fact is that the Swiss method is a) something that has not led to gun violence and b) something that you gun nuts would not put up with for ONE SECOND. You want your handgun (illegal in Switzerland), you want your 33-round magazine (illegal in Switzerland), you want your CCW (ditto) and you want to bring your fucking GUN with you every where you go.

Like I said before, if you think the Swiss method is so good, then let's agree to fight for that here. What? You were just using that as a bullshit debating point? Oh, I see.

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

182. Hahah Rage Much?

The overriding point is that they have weapons in their houses, and they are military caliber weapons (gasp) and there is little to no gun violence. has NOTHING to do with the availability of weapons. You are the one using bullshit debating points.

You seem to be the one with anger issues, not me. Have fun withyour little red faced diatribes. Hahahaha

[jgraz]

199. Sorry about the anger, intellectual cowards are a pet peeve of mine

Tell me again how many mass-killings were averted by the Swiss having weapons in their homes? They don't have handguns, they don't have CCWs and they don't have the kind of drooling gun culture that we do.

I'll be happy for us to have the Swiss model. Please, advocate some more for the Swiss model.

Once again, you expose your own agenda through your dishonesty. You don't want to save lives, you just want more guns.

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

203. What's wrong with wanting more guns? I do want more guns, I have a Christmas list of guns I want.

Oh wait, the penis thing, that's right.

The point I was advocating is that the Swiss are supplied with "military caliber" weapons (longarms) by their own government. They do not have a multitude of people running through the streets shooting up towns even though they have the rifles in their own homes with easy access to government supplied ammunition.

Oh wait, there is a seal on the ammunition that says do not open unless National Emergency. I am sure that has served to stop all the mass shootings.

[jgraz]

207. See, I already know what intellectual dishonesty is,

you don't have to keep giving me examples.

Answer the question: would you accept the Swiss model here?? I would. Of course, that would fuck up your Christmas list a bit, wouldn't it?

To answer your silly question: there's nothing wrong with wanting more guns. What's wrong (and kind of sick) is not caring how many people get shot as long as you can get all the guns you want.

Personally, I want a car that can go 200mph on the freeway. But I'm willing to compromise because I know that cars going 200mph would tend to lead to more dead people.

That's the analogy you can't get away from: you don't just want a "car", you want the equivalent of a Formula 1 racer. You won't accept just a pump-action shotgun or a .38 revolver that you can't take out of your home -- or a single, highly-regulated military rifle. You want the full arsenal. The Death Race 2000 equivalent.

That's where you lose all moral standing. It's not about the greater good, it's about you getting more toys from Santa.

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

211. You don't define my morals. Sorry to break that to you.

My moral standing comes from the fact that I nor the vast vast majority of gun owners don't kill people. So who are you to tell me where I can and cannot take it or what I can and cannot have.

I have been no such thing as intellectually dishonest. Your dishonesty comes from the fact that you can't stand that people can own something that you disagree with and are irrationally afraid of. Hope all of your video collection is up to the moral majority's standards, b/c they are trying to tell you wht you can and cannot own in that department.

As long as Democrats keep harping on gun control, the moral majority will run this country because gun control will keep them from maintaining a strong hold on power.

Waiting for the penis joke.

[jgraz]

212. Yeah, those video-porn killing sprees are a real bitch

How intellectually honest of you.

This isn't about some christian definition of morality, this is pure honest assessment of the greater good for society. In that area, I have an absolute right (See Amendment I, US Constitution) to comment on what you should or should not be allowed to own. Especially when it comes to deadly weapons like your Santa wish list.

The fact that the vast majority of gun owners don't kill people is a red herring. By your actions and your words, you support an industry and a culture that results in the deaths of 30,000 Americans a year. You have blood on your hands. You and your christmas list are partly to blame for the 33 people that are dead in Virginia. Just like you and your christmas list are partly to blame for the teenage kid who's going to eat his dad's pistol this evening, or the abused wife whose guts are soon going to be sprayed across her kitchen counters.

You enable these tragedies because you want your toys. And you come onto this board, after 33 people get blown away, and push again for your toys. So, in a sense you're right: I don't define your morals. You've done a pretty good job of that all on your own.

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

214. Yup I might as well have pulled the trigger.

Sorry, I just don't accept the responsibility for some psycho like Cho.

You as an American are tacitly supporting the murder of innocents in Iraq and by your tax dollars are directly responsible for the torture in Abu Ghraib.

Sorry, doesn't work that way.

Have fun. I bet that diatribe tired you out.

[jgraz]

215. "I just don't accept the responsibility"

You've made that abundantly clear. You have it, nonetheless.

"You as an American are tacitly supporting the murder of innocents in Iraq and by your tax dollars are directly responsible for the torture in Abu Ghraib."

A-fucking-men. The difference between you and me is that I realize this fundamental truth and am working my ass off to change the situation. You're filling out Christmas lists.

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

221. I wonder what Santa will bring this year

Hopefully its an FAL, maybe an M1A SOCOM.

[jgraz]

225. Such a telling response

Don't like your life? Getting creamed in a argument? That's ok, just go stroke your guns. This is really what it's all about, isn't it? Some have fundamentalism, some have alcohol...

You have your guns. It must be so frightening for you to think about facing the world without them.

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

226. Not really.

Must be more frightening for you to think that there are people out there armed witheven more guns in their homes.

Have fun being afraid.

Goodnight. Time to clean the AR.

[jgraz]

227. Time to clean the AR.

Make sure to chamber a round first

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

229. Now who's a little sour puss so close to bed time?

Glad to see the non gun owner is the one wishing harm on someone else.

Seems like you have some sort of rage problem.

Sweet dreams.

[jmg257]

102. The Constitution does NOT give Congress power to re-create the Militias,

only to provide for organizing, arming and discipling them, and to provide for how they were to be called forth to repel invasions, supress insurrections, etc. etc. - period. The 2nd amendment further made sure ANY infringement on the right of the people to arms would not be accepted, personally and ESPECIALLY with regards to their role in the Militias.

THE MILITIAS EXISTED ALREADY, as did HOW they were (to be) armed (the people themselves), the states' powers with regards to them (those not given to the feds through the Constitution), as were the people's role, this is what Congress (through the 2nd and their Acts), and especially the people, agreed to.

The right to arms was already secured in the Militia Clauses, the 2nd further protected that right for THE PEOPLE individually, AND made the pre-existing Militias NECESSARY.

[qdemn7]

155. What's worse?

Someone who confuses their gun with their penis? Or someone who wants to take other people's penises away?

[jgraz]

204. I'm hoping yours gets taken away before you breed

[CJ5]

127. For giggles

since we seem to follow each other today. I can counter your argument.

The key word in Article 1, Section 8 is; "as may be employed in the service of the US". Of course, the government can employ the militia. That is what they do today to form the armed forces.

The issue here is the 2nd Amendment and the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights, as you know, are rights of the "people". This is established doctrine. So, the second amendment applies to the people not the states or government. Thus, the "people" have the right to form militias and the right to bear arms just as they have the right to free speech and in excessive bail and secure in their persons, papers and effects.

[jgraz]

131. Not so much

From http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~zj5j-gttl/guns.htm

Throughout the history of the USA, many Court decisions have limited the right to keep and bear arms. The Miller case in the early 20th century limited the right to own certain classes of weapons. More recently, we have the following from the United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, which indicates that the clause about "a well regulated militia" does not mean that the average citizen is part of that militia: "Since the Second Amendment right 'to keep and bear arms' applies only to the right of the state to maintain a militia, and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right of an individual to possess a firearm." (Stevens v. U.S., United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, 1971).

A similar ruling from the Seventh Circuit held that "Construing according to its plain meaning, it seems clear that the right to bear arms is inextricably connected to the preservation of a militia . . . We conclude that the right to keep and bear handguns is not guaranteed by the Second Amendment." (Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 1982).

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

189. Wrong about Miller

The test for Miller was this; does the short barreled shotgun prove useful to a "militia?"

If the answer was yes, then he could own it. Miller was not about the individual right to bear arms, it was about the weapon itself.

So in essence what Miller is saying is if the weapon is useful to a militia then the govt can't keep you from owning it.

Good thing I don't live in the 6th or 7th Circuits. They have misused precedent and miscited Miller.

[krispos42]

58. Okay, I'll buy all the muzzle-loaders I what, but first...

you have to admit that the 1st amendment only applies to material printed on a printing press. A movable type printing press worked by hand.

As long as you stick to what 'press' meant THEN...

[jgraz]

66. Oh for fuck's sake

If this is truly what you think, then I really AM frightened by the average intelligence of gun owners. I can only assume that the RW gun nuts are even dumber.

What I really believe is that you know good and well what "the press" means in the first amendment. You're just so scared of losing your BIG METAL PENIS that you'll say any bullshit to defend your position.

[krispos42]

75. Mmmmm... penis joke!

Inevitable, as usual.

Real quick, because I have to get in the shower...


I am in the militia, along with 57 million other men in this country.

We have the right to keep and bear arm that are appropriate for use in the event that we are called to the colors in an emergency, up to and including disaster and invasion.

My bolt-action Spanish Mauser and pump shotgun both qualify.

So do civilian AR and AK-style firearms.

Have a good night, and don't spend too much time thinking of me in the shower with a big metal penis.

[jgraz]

81. Right -- be sure to mention the make and model of your weapons

Cuz that makes you look even less like a gun fetishist.

If my penis joke is off-base, perhaps you can tell us all what motivated you to make up the bullshit argument about "the press".

[krispos42]

157. "Spanish Mauser' and "pump shotgun' are generic terms

My rifle is formally of the Spanish military. It is of the famed Mauser design, but chambered for a 7mm bullet instead of a 7.92mm cartridge like German Mausers were.

My point with 'the press' is that you don't need to be in newspapers, or have material printed on paper, to have 'freedom of the press'. The term has evolved over time to include Internet, television, radio, etc.

And the fact that in 1787 they issued smoothbore muskets to both the Army and militias does no mean that, 226 years later I still have to cast my own lead balls. The weapon issued to the militia of old was the same in capabilities as the army-issue weapon.

The Army now issues .223 and .308-caliber rifles and 9mm pistols, all of which (and more) I can get at my local friendly gun store. I can't get them fully-automatic, but I can get them close enough.

[jgraz]

201. mmm...more gun specs

Are you getting hard yet?

[qdemn7]

156. Try to take

My BIG METAL PENIS away and see how much sperm you get covered with.

[jgraz]

202. Either you've just threatened to shoot me

or the thought of some man grabbing your cock just made you cum.

[Little Wing]

173. Funny how they're super picky about any other amendment

but 'intent' is key for the 2nd. Hypocritical bullshit artists.

[Old and In the Way]

31. Very good point.

Perhaps individual gun-owners should be calling for a Contitutional Convention to enshrine individual gun ownership laws. I do agree that a well regulated militia in 1776 was probably a local cadre of men who were identified as the 1st line of protection, based on being proficient in handling and firing their muskets. Seems to me that this definition of 'well regulated militia' has been transferred to our professional military services. So either we dissolve the professional military and go back to the volunteer minutemen concept or we revisit and fix the Constitution by constitiutional amendment process to allow non-well regulated, non-militia indivuals the right to keep and bear arms..

Just being a strict constructionist here....

[krispos42]

62. That would make far to much sense... :-)

Besides, tampering with the Bill of Rights? Sacred cow, man. Sacred cow.

[BLUSH]

231. why tamper?

If everyone would just read the WHOLE amendment, not just the second half.

[CJ5]

167. You make a fine point

However, the militia you speak of is not a militia but an army raised by the government as outlined in Article I, Section 8.

The flaw I see in most of these posts is this; The Bill of Rights are individual rights, every single one of them, rights of the people. So how does it square that the founders decided to throw in a State or Government right as the 2nd Amendment??? Does that make sense to you?

[krispos42]

54. Yes, he was a member of the militia

He was a male between the ages of 17 and 45.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+10USC311

[TnDem]

55. The contention sometimes stems from...

The word regulated...If you read the Federalist Papers and others, (the rough drafts/discussions/notes on which the Bill of Rights and the body of the Constitution were written), the word "regulated" clearly meant "trained"..They wanted the militia to be "well trained"...Most of these were written by Alexander Hamilton.

I have no problem with that...Offer me a nationwide CCW and I'll go through any training. I am tired of taking my life in my hands while traveling through Pittsburgh.

If you are really interested in the entire Bill of Rights and its authors and how they arrived where they did, I suggest reading the Federalist Papers...

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa29.htm

[aikoaiko]

13. As a matter of fact, a few other people with guns on the VT campus might have led to less harm.

I know you hate that, but its very possibly true.

[Hobarticus]

17. Very possibly true, the opposite as well. eom

[jgraz]

26. Also very possibly bullshit

Guess which position is supported by actual facts.

[aikoaiko]

32. Ok give me that facts. let hear them.

[jgraz]

40. Why don't you start here

http://www.bradycenter.org/stop2/facts/fs1.php


Edit: The point (since most gun nuts have a problem understanding this) is that even if your Rambo wet dream came true and someone (who I'm guessing in your head looks a lot like you with bigger pecs) were to stop Cho, that still would not make up for the additional gun deaths in the long run.

In other words, we've already tried your hollywood shoot-em-up social experiment. It isn't working.

[aikoaiko]

49. How about a neutral source for facts -- the Bradys are biased.

You wrote:
Edit: The point (since most gun nuts have a problem understanding this) is that even if your Rambo wet dream came true and someone (who I'm guessing in your head looks a lot like you with bigger pecs) were to stop Cho, that still would not make up for the additional gun deaths in the long run.
In other words, we've already tried your hollywood shoot-em-up social experiment. It isn't working.

But the problem is the VT shooting was so successful because of anti-gun measures on campus to keep more law-abiding folks from being able to defend themselves.

[jgraz]

57. Ad hominem bullshit

The facts are the facts. Just because you don't like the messenger doesn't mean the facts aren't true. Show me where ONE THING on that page is wrong.

"But the problem is the VT shooting was so successful because of anti-gun measures on campus to keep more law-abiding folks from being able to defend themselves. "

No, the VT shooting was so successful because a non-US citizen with a history of psychological problems was allowed to buy military style hardware simply by walking into a gun shop with money.

The problem is that you're willing to put up with suicides, domestic murders and 1 or 2-person public shootings in order to live out your vigilante fantasies. The Brady site presents the real results of your fantasy. You just don't want to believe it.

[aikoaiko]

68. Ok, here's an example --

From the Brady's: From 1987-1990, victims used firearms to protect themselves in fewer than one percent of all violent offenses.<9>

Here is an example of the bias. The article defines gun "use" as shooting the gun, while many gun owners define using their guns by revealing them or drawing the weapon to control an aggressive persons behavior. That gun owners don't shoot more in those situations demonstrate how restrained they are.

[jgraz]

83. Still ad hominem

You don't like the way they present that particular statistic, that's your right. You don't, however, get to say that this one (entirely correct) statistic invalidates all other data on their site.

Why don't you refute the rest of the data?

A gun kept in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in an unintentional shooting (4 times), a criminal assault or homicide (7 times), or an attempted or completed suicide (11 times) than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.
Right or wrong?

When someone is home, a gun is used for protection in fewer than two percent of home invasion crimes
Right or wrong?

The risk of homicide in the home is three times greater in households with guns
Right or wrong?

The risk of suicide is five times greater in households with guns
Right or wrong?

In 1998, there were only 134 justifiable handgun homicides by a private citizen compared with a total of 6,498 handgun murders in the United States.
Right or wrong?

A 1994 national survey found that 71 percent of the U.S. population feels less safe when others in the community acquire firearms.
Right or wrong?

From 1990-1998, two-thirds of spouse and ex-spouse murder victims were killed by guns.
Right or wrong?

[aikoaiko]

85. I said they were biased, you asked to show you one ex, and I showed you the bias.

now you want me to show you more? I think not.

Saying the Brady's are biased and showing it to you is not ad hominem.

[jgraz]

88. Nope I asked you to show me one thing that is *wrong*

It's so much easier to win a debate when you make up both sides, isn't it?

The fact is you can't refute ONE PIECE of data on that site, so you're trying to muddy the waters.

[aikoaiko]

91. That's right, but in response to my saying they were biased.

You're the one who equated biased with wrong. Unless you weren't denying that they are biased.

[jgraz]

92. Good tactic -- start the meta-argument

you've already lost the other one

[Hobarticus]

59. Getting shot in the head by a handgun owner tends to do that...eom

[jmg257]

94. You went to the Brady Bunch for gun "Facts"? Why not ask just

Hitler for realiable info on Jewish folks?

Might as well read this too, as the potential for biased info is apparantly not an issue:
"INTRODUCTION: Gun Facts is a free e-book that debunks common myths about gun control. It is intended as a reference guide for journalist, activists, politicians, and other people interested in restoring honesty to the debate about guns, crime, and the 2nd Amendment."

http://www.gunfacts.info/


DC? NYC? LA? Gun free Schools? Hardly beacons of safety - despite the strictest of gun laws. DC was a social expermiment that failed miserably to fight crime and murder by outlawing guns - laughable except it is so tragic so many must die helplessly (psst. they lead the nation in murder rates, VC, etc.)

We do KNOW gun control does not work; we do KNOW gun bans do not work, we have real crime statistics that show guns really have no impact on crime rates one way or the other. We do KNOW blaming an object for the reprehensible behavior of sick individuals is illogical. We do KNOW object bans make matter worse - more crime, more violent crime, no limits to the object by criminals, while only imposing MORE ills on the lawful.

[jgraz]

98. Oh yeah, compare Sarah Brady to Hitler

Your gun fetish is making you a bit nutty.

Why don't you quit your bullshit ad hominem attacks and refute one fact on that site?

[jmg257]

100. Why don't they get FACTS to refute? I read their site - misleading data, incomplete

statistics, and out-right lies don't impress.

[jgraz]

134. There you go, just keep your fingers in your ears

At least you won't be able to shoot anybody that way.

[Hobarticus]

15. Free speech doesn't have manufacturers and lobbyists, like guns...

to protect it and buy off congressmen.

Besides, you can't shout "FIRE" in a crowded theater because people can die. Freedom of speech doesn't mean you're not free of the responsibility for your actions.

[BLUSH]

16. Wouldn't the second amendment right

be even "less absolute" so to speak than the first amendment right of free speech considering the former amenmdent has the QUALIFYING PHRASE, "a well regulated milita being necessary..."?

[Hobarticus]

18. No argument here with that...

Still, until you can find a massive free speech lobby with deep pockets somewhere, it'll never be protected like guns.

[Old and In the Way]

34. One could also argue that the second amendment trumps the 1st amendment.

Might makes right, so to speak. My freedoms are naturally constrained by the business end of a gun.

[BLUSH]

37. hey don't bring the Donald into this!

:)

[jgraz]

42. You have quite the Rosie outlook...

[BLUSH]

139. some see things through rove-colored glasses

:)

[CJ5]

115. The media doesn't have lobbyists???

The media, press, free speech advocates are all involved in the government. Law-abiding citizens don't cry FIRE but that doesn't stop criminals. To say the free speech is not as dangerous as guns is folly. Think about speech and the press and how it has been used throughout the centuries. I would say speech has been much more deadly. I think the Constitution has done us well and to try and change it to give us a sense of security from criminals would be the beginning of the end.

[Old and In the Way]

117. Any links to back up when free speech has killed people?

Not free speech that's used or been answered by bullets or other means of force, I mean actual words killing people. My experience is that words can be hurtful,in an emotional way, but not in the physical sense.

[CJ5]

120. Plenty of examples

Making it short; Salem, Germany, the Crusades, all incited by media, press and (free)speech.

[Old and In the Way]

129. You're obviously confused.

Witches were killed by paranoids and ignorant people using weapons, as were the Jews and Crusaders. It wasn't the words/accusations that killed them, it was instruments of physical violence that did them in.

[Bassic]

20. Hey, this is America!

People have the right to own guns. So what if massacres happen once in a while? After all this is the land of violent revenge!

:sarcasm:

[AnneD]

21. If you have a gun...

you can demand free speech....to put it simply and crudely. Our founding fathers did not trust a powerful government but realized some government was necessary. The how powerful is a government when they know their citizens are armed.

[Old and In the Way]

41. If you have a gun...

you can also take away free speech. And, if the gun holders of American haven't risen up to take back our government from King George the Lesser, I think we can put that canard to rest, don't you? This administration isn't exactly quaking at the thought of the NRA and gun owners storming the WH.

[AnneD]

90. He just hasn't

pissed them off enough yet, although he is closer than he thinks. There are some parts of this country I would think twice about hunting in if I were him.

Of course they don't do real hunting. Shooting at caged quail is not exactly challenging or worthy of a real sportsman.

[dysfunctional press]

22. because words can be very hurtful.

:crazy:

[jgraz]

27. Exactly -- we just had a mass scolding at a local mall

It was horrible.

[Raine]

223. LOL

:rofl: :thumbsup:

[deutsey]

35. I recommend we establish fenced-in "2nd Amendment Zones"

ala Free Speech Zones.

:sarcasm:

[jgraz]

43. Not a bad idea -- let the cowboys shoot each other

When I'm appointed king, that's one of the first things I'm gonna do (right after I revive that whole Christian/lion thing).

[Old and In the Way]

44. I'd say we make the State of Utah the desigated 2nd Amendment zone!

Seems like a reasonable compromise. :rofl:

[BuyingThyme]

61. How 'bout Florida?

[jgraz]

69. Yeah, Florida. Utah's too pretty

They can all blow each other away and then we'll let global warming and rising seas take care of the bodies. Q.E.D.

[jmg257]

89. Actually - the supreme law of the land says the entire US of A is a 2nd amendment zone.

Those who do not agree, should take residence elsewhere.

[jgraz]

93. Yeah, not so much

Read some Constitutional law, then get back to us

[jmg257]

95. Done and done. Self-evident actually - just read the document. It's pretty clear too! nt

[jgraz]

96. Obviously, that's why everyone agrees with you

:eyes:

[jmg257]

97. At least those who can read - and not pretend something they don't like doesn't mean what it says.

[jgraz]

101. Complete crap and you know it

At least most of the gun nuts admit there's a debate out there. You must be really afraid of the facts.

[jmg257]

Oh, I admit there is a debate - it is a stupid one, since the anti side is mostly lead by those

too untrusting of the people, too ignorant of the facts, too dishonest to admit the truth, or really too stupid to READ THE DOCUMENTS, and ALL the info out there, especially that by the framers themselves saying EXACTLY what their intent was - 98% of which supports the individual Right articulated by the 2nd AND the importance of the State Militias to freedom - just as it says.

It is only a matter of time though, as ever more and more scholars are starting to admit the truth.

[jgraz]

108. That shit might fly at freerepublic, but over here we like actual facts

Maybe you're a bit out of your league, no?

[jmg257]

110. That's your "debate"? A stupid non-sensical personal attack? GET SOME FACTS

and we can discuss them, otherwise your just making yourself seem ignorant, and worse - wasting my time besides.

[jgraz]

112. Are you still here?

Geez, the mods must be busy today

[jmg257]

113. ANOTHER brave and intellligent response - you're batting 1000 now!

But still no data!?! Hmmmm - nevermind - this case is closed...

Facts I have, but not time for the likes of you who talk "smart", but rely so completely on others to think for them.

[jgraz]

132. Sigh...apparently the courts are also stupid, ignorant and dishonest

From http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~zj5j-gttl/guns.htm

Throughout the history of the USA, many Court decisions have limited the right to keep and bear arms. The Miller case in the early 20th century limited the right to own certain classes of weapons. More recently, we have the following from the United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, which indicates that the clause about "a well regulated militia" does not mean that the average citizen is part of that militia: "Since the Second Amendment right 'to keep and bear arms' applies only to the right of the state to maintain a militia, and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right of an individual to possess a firearm." (Stevens v. U.S., United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, 1971).

A similar ruling from the Seventh Circuit held that "Construing according to its plain meaning, it seems clear that the right to bear arms is inextricably connected to the preservation of a militia . . . We conclude that the right to keep and bear handguns is not guaranteed by the Second Amendment." (Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 1982).

[BLUSH]

111. What shit?

My point is if the first amendment is not absolute, then the second isn't either ... a concept the gun lobby refuses to recognize. (They have a problem with "well-regulated militia.")

[CJ5]

118. I have not read anywhere anything that backs you up

I am open to discuss any documents and debates from the founders that show an interest in allowing the government to control an individuals right to bear arms. You may read into what you want as may I but to get to the nut of it lets review the founders own documents on the matter. What I have read make it clear their intentions.

[jgraz]

119. Well you're just stupid, ignorant and dishonest

Cuz clearly no one else would want to take away our shiny metal penises. :sarcasm:

Welcome to DU. :hi: This place was a lot nicer before all the right-wingers showed up.

[CJ5]

121. Why the insult

I am not a right winger! I thought I was having a discussion with someone who had a slightly different view, I guess discussions are lost on you. I will forgive and await your evidence counter to my understanding of the intentions of the founders.

[jgraz]

123. The sarcasm tag is key

It means I was being ironic

[deutsey]

103. Or be rounded up in Free Speech Zones

:eyes:

[TnDem]

50. How about this...

You can't shoot into the roof of a crowded theater either.

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

191. You owe me a keyboard.

:rofl:

[EstimatedProphet]

51. One big difference

You're talking about taking away people's rights to access guns, since some people abuse them.

You're not talking about taking away the people's ability to yell 'fire' in a crowded theater.

Your premsie doesn't hold. You can't yell 'fire' in a theater because you'll get arrested AFTER THE FACT, not before.

[krispos42]

53. They are both absolute rights, but not absolute unfettered rights

The only people that say the 2nd is unfettered are anti-gun people making a strawman.

[piedmont]

65. Ownership never killed anybody. nt

[samsingh]

67. that's a very good question

[davepc]

70. The ATF disagrees with ownership being an absolute right

Ask anybody who's tried to purchase a firearm with a felony conviction or who has been involuntary committed to a mental health facility.

[jmg257]

71. Supreme Court also says I can not commit murder with a gun. Reasonable,

and I totally agree! It's an absolute right, with some REASONABLE restrictions allowed - i.e. DO NOT COMMIT A CRIME WITH YOUR GUN.

Dred Scott, the U.S. Supreme Court: (individual right)
It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased...to hold public meetings upon political affairs,
and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.


Supreme Court in Miller: (why M16s should be legal)
"The sentiment of the time
strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that
adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the
Militia - civilians primarily...
These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males
physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense...
when called for service these men were expected to
appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in
common use at the time."

"Mr Scott objected to the clause in the 6th amendment "No person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to arms. He observed that if this becomes part if the constituion, such persons can neither be called upon for their service nor can an equivalent be demanded; it is also attended with still further difficulties, for a Miltiia can never be depended on. This would lead to violation of another article in the consttitution which secures the people the right of keeping arms (Article1 Section8 C15) and in this recourse must be had to a standing army."

"Senator Fisher Ames Sen: "Mr. Madison has introduced his long expected amendments .... "The rights of conscience, of bearing arms, of changing the government, are declared to be inherent in the people."

"Senator William Grayson: Last Monday a string of amendments were presented to the lower House; these altogether respected personal liberty"

Joseph Jones: "they are calculated to secure the personal rights of the people ...."

On September 9, the Senate again took up what became the Bill of Rights. It passed a form of the First Amendment similar to the final version. The Senate then rejected a proposal to add "for the common defence" after "bear arms" in what became the Second Amendment.



OF COURSE it is an indiviudal right, of course A primary purpose is that well armed and well-trained STATE Militias are required, of course it is meant to be absolute - otherwise Madison wouldn't have penned it - HE HAD NO DOUBT it was absolute...

"because I conceive that in a certain degree ... the rights in question are reserved by the manner in which the federal powers are granted...Supposing a bill of rights to be proper ... I am inclined to think that absolute restrictions in cases that are doubtful, or where emergencies may overrule them, ought to be avoided. The restrictions however strongly marked on paper will never be regarded when opposed to the decided sense of the public, and after repeated violations in extraordinary cases they will lose even their ordinary efficacy"


Don't like it? At least be honest and AMEND THE AMENDMENT!!!

[slackmaster]

72. Funny that you used a comic book site as your "scholarly" reference

There are no "absolute" rights. Even the right to live can be curtailed through due process. The same is true of free speech, the right to keep and bear arms, and all other rights most of us enjoy.

You and I and most other people are part of the militia of the United States BTW, as well as state militias.

Federal (United States Code):

TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311

§ 311. Militia: composition and classes

(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.

State of California (Military and Veterans Code):

120. The militia of the State shall consist of the National Guard,
State Military Reserve and the Naval Militia--which constitute the
active militia --and the unorganized militia.

121. The unorganized militia consists of all persons liable to
service in the militia, but not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

122. The militia of the State consists of all able-bodied male
citizens and all other able-bodied males who have declared their
intention to become citizens of the United States, who are between
the ages of eighteen and forty-five, and who are residents of the
State, and of such other persons as may upon their own application be
enlisted or commissioned therein pursuant to the provisions of this
division, subject, however, to such exemptions as now exist or may be
hereafter created by the laws of the United States or of this State.

Refer to other states' laws for more information.

References:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec...

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=m...

The Second Amendment doesn't specify that it applies only to the organized militias. It therefore applies to the people in general.

[BLUSH]

105. NICE TRY!!!!

The article is from the Minneapolis Star Tribune and posted on that comic book site.

[slackmaster]

106. It's still a bunch of horseshit

:hi:

[BLUSH]

107. Here is a bio of the author ... and your credentials?

Saul Cornell is Professor of History at The Ohio State University. He specializes in the American Revolution, the Early Republic, American Political Thought and Culture, and Constitutional history. He is one of the nation's leading experts on the Second Amendment and has lectured and published widely on this controversial topic. He has studied at the University of Sussex and has a BA from Amherst and an MA and Ph.D. from the University of Pennsylvania. He joined the faculty of The Ohio State University in 1991 after teaching at College of William and Mary. In 1995 he was the Thomas Jefferson Chair at the University of Leiden in The Netherlands.

http://www.glenninstitute.org/glenn/conference_bios/cornell.html

[slackmaster]

109. Just an intelligent, thoughtful student of history

I'll exercise my right to choose my opinion over Professor Cornell's. I don't need him or you or anyone else to do my thinking for me.

Appeals to authority have little effect on me.

[ends_dont_justify]

135. *snerk*

Well someone lost :eyes: you know someone on DU has lost a debate entirely when they can only reply with nasty one liners ;)

[Old and In the Way]

76. Definitions of the words "regulated" and "militia"

Just thought it would be helpful to define the key words in the 2nd Amendment

Main Entry: reg·u·late
Pronunciation: 're-gy&-"lAt also 'rA-
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -lat·ed; -lat·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin regulatus, past participle of regulare, from Latin regula rule
1 a : to govern or direct according to rule b (1) : to bring under the control of law or constituted authority (2) : to make regulations for or concerning <regulate the industries of a country>
2 : to bring order, method, or uniformity to <regulate one's habits>
3 : to fix or adjust the time, amount, degree, or rate of <regulate the pressure of a tire>


Main Entry: mi·li·tia
Pronunciation: m&-'li-sh&
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, military service, from milit-, miles
1 a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2 : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

I would think the US military, under the control of the US government, would describe the Founding Father's idea of a well regulated militia. Don't see anything describing individual gun rights.

Time for a Constitutional Convention!

[jmg257]

87. Lets use those terms as intended and recognized in the Constitution:

A. Hamilton: "..the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia,"
(1788 - BEFORE what would become the 2nd was written)

The Militia of the several states; Militia Act of 1792: "That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia."
(enacted by 2nd Congress, just after the BOR was ratified)

{Of course the definition of "able bodied male citizen" would be expanded these days.}

How were all the people to be armed?? By themselves - as they always were...

Militia Act of 1792: 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,...

That way the govt couldn't DISarm the state militias and render them useless.

"Is there a man in this House who would wish to see so large a proportion of the community, perhaps one-third, armed by the United States, and liable to be disarmed by them?"
Jeremiah Wadsworth of Connecticut - Continental Congress - 1st Congress

[Old and In the Way]

116. We have 2 well regulated militias.

They are called the National Guard and US Army. No where does the 2nd Amendment talk about the individual's right to own firearms. I would think that this was a conscious decision on the framer's part. After all, they could have added 2 simple words to the 2nd Amendment after "well regulated militia" - "and individuals". They didn't. Maybe our Forefathers envisioned the day when nutty people would have access to weapons capable of indiscriminately taking large numbers of innocent lives.

Now, I'm not saying you shouldn't own guns, just that I think the gun-lovers need to start the process to change the Constitution to allow you that luxury. Or start a process to dissolve the well regulated militia's we have and re-institute the Swiss model that would make us all citizen-soldiers. Your call.

[jmg257]

125. You are kidding, right?

"No where does the 2nd Amendment talk about the individual's right to own firearms."

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" says EXACTLY that: right = right; the people = we the people - us individuals; keep means own, bear means...well bear, arms = firearms - at the least.

YOU need to amend the amendment if you really don't want the personal right protected.


Also the Guard is NOT the Militias of the Constitution - the Guard is FEDERALY created (and federally armed) - which power the Constitution did NOT grant Congress, only "to provide for organizng, arming and discilpling THE Militia" - which already existed - ONLY 1 Militia was recognized to exist - and to BE permanent and required - NOT recreated...the Militia of the several states - the people - well armed and well trained. The Militia members - the people - armed themselves, and so that method continued because it is what the people wanted and ratifeid and protected via the Militia Clauses and the 2nd (otherwise they could be DISarmed by tyrants).

The Army is NOT the Militia either - they are a separate instution also recognized by the Constitution - but NOT even required to be permanent, not necessary to a free State, and NOT to serve in the capacity required of the real Militia.

[Old and In the Way]

137. no "the people" is plural, the collective we.

If they meant "the right of persons (individuals) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", they would have said it.

Here's the full text: "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." My neighbor owning a gun, today, has no bearing or responsibility on "keeping the necessary security of a free State". He is not part of a "well regulated militia"....he might be a vigilante or part of a RW survivalist or fundie-religious movement, but not part of a State recognized and regulated militia. The well regulated Militia, as defined by our National Guard and Army, are the bodies that Congress authorizes to fufill this obligation.

But, if you want to change the law and get rid of the Guard and Army, I would heartily support going back to the days of citizen soldiers!

[jmg257]

160. Aah - now we are getting together on this - mostly anyway ;) !

The Militia of the several States, as existing and recognized by the Constitution, has indeed been obsoleted by the Congress, even though it is REQUIRED by the Constitution. I will not argue that it hasn't. (see the Warner Act for the last nail)

The National Guard has officially taken the place of the Constitutional Militias, even as part of USC Code - despite Congress having no constitutional power to do so. However - the rest of we the people are STILL officially part of an unorganized militia. For convenience? Maybe. For a more effective "Militia"? OK - but just not for the roles listed in the Constitution (useless if it is overseas). For usurption and eventual support of tryanny? Very possible (take the power from the people - larger ARMY necessary). Unconstitutional as acted? Pretty much.

The Army is NOT THE militia - not worth discussing here.


Of course none of this has too much to do with the individual RKBA, other then duty of service in THE Militia is one of the primary reasons why the right was protected; another primary reason being the unalienable right to self-defense.

The right articulated is indeed personal, because all the other rights enumerated in the BOR are personal - the term "the right of the people" & "the people" means the same thing every time it is used - in the 1st, the 2nd, & the 4th ALL refer to individual rights of ALL the people, as does the preamble when We the people secured "ourselves and our posterity" the blessings of liberty, etc etc. So just as "the Militia" means the same thing (THE Militia of the several States as it already existed) every time it is used, so does "right of the people".

Now if your are NOT sure just by reading the document - which I admit is THE place to make up your mind because IT can not be "wrong", then there are still PLENTY of quotes by the founders & framers who actually wrote, modified and sent the articles to the people for ratification saying what the entire Bill of Rights were - lots of quotes by the ACTUAL members of the 1st Congress, the ratifying committees with their recommendations, etc. - all about the Bill of Rights being about protecting "personal rights", "individual liberties", "private", "absolute", etc. I have a few lists if you want them.

All this was first backed up the 2nd Amendment, and further backed up by the Militia Act of 1792, and the USSC in the Dred Scott decision, and other rulings. (as quoted elsewhere here at DU)

IF it was intended by the 2nd for the people to ONLY keep and bear arms in their role of the Militia for the common defense as has been argued here - the const. or the 2nd would have said that. Instead, even though the 1st Senate contemplated that very idea - THEY said NO - otherwise they would have approved adding "for the common defense" after "bear arms" in the 4th article on Sept 9, 1789 when a motion to do so came up - THEY REJECTED IT!! Further securing the PERSONAL Right for us all - individually and without infringement.

How about a logical argument? You want to tell me, that the people who just 10 years earlier overthrew the largest military in the world mostly through the armed people - minutemen and militias - using their own guns, who fought the 1st battle of the revolution BECAUSE the English were going to disarm the militia, who lived on a frontier with wild animals, "savages", Frenchman, Spaniards, the English, etc. etc to battle everyday, who lived mostly in states which also protected the indidvidual right explicitly, would willingly give up their personal right to own arms - and all to a federal govt THAT THEY DIDN'T TRUST? NOT LIKELY! Shay's rebellion or not - THE PEOPLE would not deprive themselves or their posterity an unalienable right - THEY COULDN'T. So - they ensured they would ALWAYS have the power to fight threats to themselves and the Union - individuallly AND yes - collectively.

Argue that they couldn't foresee the carnage possible with today's arms? - OK - but that does NOT change what THEY wrote and what the people ratified, and what IS the law of the Land.

[jgraz]

178. More words, more crap

"Since the Second Amendment right 'to keep and bear arms' applies only to the right of the state to maintain a militia, and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right of an individual to possess a firearm." (Stevens v. U.S., United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, 1971).

"Construing according to its plain meaning, it seems clear that the right to bear arms is inextricably connected to the preservation of a militia . . . We conclude that the right to keep and bear handguns is not guaranteed by the Second Amendment." (Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 1982)

"Making a firearm without approval may be subject to criminal sanction, as is possession of an unregistered firearm and failure to pay the tax on one, 26 U.S.C. 5861, 5871." (UNITED STATES, PETITIONER v. THOMPSON/CENTER ARMS COMPANY, on writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the federal circuit, June 8, 1992)

"We follow our sister circuits in holding that the Second Amendment is a right held by the states and does not protect the possession of a weapon by a private citizen." (Hickman v. City of Los Angeles, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, April 5, 1996)

[jmg257]

192. OK - we can rely on interpretive court decisions, though they too lean both ways...

Which follows represents a listing of twenty-one American decisions, spanning the period from 1822 to 1981, which have analyzed right to keep and bear arms provisions in the light of statutes ranging from complete bans on handgun sales to bans on carrying of weapons to regulation of carrying by permit systems. Those decisions not only explained the nature of such a right, but also struck down legislative restrictions as violative of it, are designated by asterisks.

20TH CENTURY CASES
1. State v. Blocker, 291 Or. 255, — — — P. 2d — — — (1981).
"The statue is written as a total proscription of the mere possession of certain weapons, and that mere possession, insofar as a billy is concerned, is constitutionally protected."

"In these circumstances, we conclude that it is proper for us to consider defendant's 'overbreadth' attack to mean that the statute swept so broadly as to infringe rights that it could not reach, which in the setting means the right to possess arms guaranteed by sec 27."

2. State v. Kessler, 289 Or. 359, 614 P. 2d 94, at 95, at 98 (1980).
"We are not unmindful that there is current controversy over the wisdom of a right to bear arms, and that the original motivations for such a provision might not seem compelling if debated as a new issue. Our task, however, in construing a constitutional provision is to respect the principles given the status of constitutional guarantees and limitations by the drafters; it is not to abandon these principles when this fits the needs of the moment."

"Therefore, the term 'arms' as used by the drafters of the constitutions probably was intended to include those weapons used by settlers for both personal and military defense. The term 'arms' was not limited to firearms, but included several handcarried weapons commonly used for defense. The term 'arms' would not have included cannon or other heavy ordnance not kept by militiamen or private citizens."

3. Motley v. Kellogg, 409 N.E. 2d 1207, at 1210 (Ind. App. 1980) (motion to transfer denied 1-27-1981).
"ot making applications available at the chief's office effectively denied members of the community the opportunity to obtain a gun permit and bear arms for their self-defense."

4. Schubert v. DeBard, 398 N.E. 2d 1339, at 1341 (Ind. App. 1980) (motion to transfer denied 8-28-1980).
"We think it clear that our constitution provides our citizenry the right to bear arms for their self- defense."

5. Taylor v. McNeal, 523 S.W. 2d 148, at 150 (Mo. App. 1975)
"The pistols in question are not contraband. * * * Under Art. I, sec 23, Mo. Const. 1945, V.A.M.S., every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, and property, with the limitation that this section shall not justify the wearing of concealed arms."

6. City of Lakewood v. Pillow, 180 Colo. 20, 501 P. 2d 744, at 745 (en banc 1972).
"As an example, we note that this ordinance would prohibit gunsmiths, pawnbrokers and sporting goods stores from carrying on a substantial part of their business. Also, the ordinance appears to prohibit individuals from transporting guns to and from such places of business. Furthermore, it makes it unlawful for a person to possess a firearm in a vehicle or in a place of business for the purpose of self-defense. Several of these activities are constitutionally protected. Colo. Const. art. II, sec 13."

7. City of Las Vegas v. Moberg, 82 N.M. 626, 485 P. 2d 737, at 738 (N.M. App. 1971).
"It is our opinion that an ordinance may not deny the people the constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms, and to that extent the ordinance under consideration is void."

8. State v. Nickerson, 126 Mt. 157, 247 P. 2d 188, at 192 (1952).
"The law of this jurisdiction accords to the defendant the right to keep and bear arms and to use same in defense of his own home, his person and property."

9. People v. Liss, 406 Ill. 419, 94 N.E. 2d 320, at 323 (1950).
"The second amendment to the constitution of the United States provides the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This of course does not prevent the enactment of a law against carrying concealed weapons, but it does indicate it should be kept in mind, in the construction of a statue of such character, that it is aimed at persons of criminal instincts, and for the prevention of crime, and not against use in the protection of person or property."

10. People v. Nakamura, 99 Colo. 262, at 264, 62 P. 2d 246 (en banc 1936).
"It is equally clear that the act wholly disarms aliens for all purposes. The state . . . cannot disarm any class of persons or deprive them of the right guaranteed under section 13, article II of the Constitution, to bear arms in defense of home, person and property. The guaranty thus extended is meaningless if any person is denied the right to possess arms for such protection."

11. Glasscock v. City of Chattanooga, 157 Tenn. 518, at 520, 11 S.W. 2d 678 (1928).
"There is no qualification of the prohibition against the carrying of a pistol in the city ordinance before us but it is made unlawful 'to carry on or about the person any pistol,' that is, any sort of pistol in any sort of manner. *** e must accordingly hold the provision of this ordinance as to the carrying of a pistol invalid."

12. People v. Zerillo, 219 Mich. 635, 189 N.W. 927, at 928 (1922).
"The provision in the Constitution granting the right to all persons to bear arms is a limitation upon the right of the Legislature to enact any law to the contrary. The exercise of a right guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be made subject to the will of the sheriff."

13. State v. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222, at 224 (1921).
"We are of the opinion, however, that 'pistol' ex vi termini is properly included within the word 'arms,' and that the right to bear such arms cannot be infringed. The historical use of pistols as 'arms' of offense and defense is beyond controversy."

"The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions."

14. State v. Rosenthal, 75 VT. 295, 55 A. 610, at 611 (1903).
"The people of the state have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state. *** The result is that Ordinance No. 10, so far as it relates to the carrying of a pistol, is inconsistent with and repugnant to the Constitution and the laws of the state, and it is therefore to that extent, void."

15. In re Brickey, 8 Ida. 597, at 598-99, 70 p. 609 (1902).
"The second amendment to the federal constitution is in the following language: '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 language of section 11, article I of the constitution of Idaho, is as follows: 'The people have the right to bear arms for their security and defense, but the legislature shall regulate the exercise of this right by law.' Under these constitutional provisions, the legislature has no power to prohibit a citizen from bearing arms in any portion of the state of Idaho, whether within or without the corporate limits of cities, towns, and villages."
19TH CENTURY CASES

16. Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878).
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege."

17. Jennings v. State, 5 Tex. Crim. App. 298, at 300-01 (1878).
"We believe that portion of the act which provides that, in case of conviction, the defendant shall forfeit to the county the weapon of weapons so found on or about his person is not within the scope of legislative authority. * * * One of his most sacred rights is that of having arms for his own defence and that of the State. This right is one of the surest safeguards of liberty and self-preservation."

18. Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn. 165, 8 Am. Rep. 8, at 17 (1871).
"The passage from Story shows clearly that this right was intended, as we have maintained in this opinion, and was guaranteed to and to be exercised and enjoyed by the citizen as such, and not by him as a soldier, or in defense solely of his political rights."

19. Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846).
"The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well- regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State."

20. Simpson v. State, 13 Tenn. 356, at 359-60 (1833).
"But suppose it to be assumed on any ground, that our ancestors adopted and brought over with them this English statute, or portion of the common law, our constitution has completely abrogated it; it says, 'that the freemen of this State have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defence.' Article II, sec. 26. * * * By this clause of the constitution, an express power is given and secured to all the free citizens of the State to keep and bear arms for their defence, without any qualification whatever as to their kind or nature; and it is conceived, that it would be going much too far, to impair by construction or abridgement a constitutional privilege, which is so declared; neither, after so solemn an instrument hath said the people may carry arms, can we be permitted to impute to the acts thus licensed, such a necessarily consequent operation as terror to the people to be incurred thereby; we must attribute to the framers of it, the absence of such a view."

21. Bliss v. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822).
"For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise."

"But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution."

"...a list of twelve scholarly articles which have dealt with the subject of the right to keep and bear arms as reflected in the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The scholars who have undertaken this research range from professors of law, history and philosophy to a United States Senator. All have concluded that the second amendment is an individual right protecting American citizens in their peaceful use of firearms.
..."

ALSO:

22. Dred Scott decision, U.S. Supreme Court:

It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.


23. Emerson, 270 F.3d at 264-65. The Fifth Circuit has
interpreted the Second Amendment to protect an individual
right.

24. the United States Department of Justice has recently adopted the individual right
model. See Op. Off. of Legal Counsel, “Whether the Second Amendment Secures an Individual Right” (2004)

25. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms
REPORT of the SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION of the UNITED STATES SENATE
NINETY-SEVENTH CONGRESS
Second Session
February 1982

"The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner."

26. THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
Argued December 7, 2006 Decided March 9, 2007
No. 04-7041
SHELLY PARKER, ET AL.,
APPELLANTS v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND
ADRIAN M. FENTY, MAYOR OF THE DISTRICT

"When we look at the Bill of Rights as a whole, the setting
of the Second Amendment reinforces its individual nature. The
Bill of Rights was almost entirely a declaration of individual
rights, and the Second Amendment’s inclusion therein strongly
indicates that it, too, was intended to protect personal liberty."


"The United States Supreme Court has only three times commented upon the meaning of the second amendment to our constitution. The first comment, in Dred Scott, indicated strongly that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right; the Court noted that, were it to hold blacks to be entitled to equality of citizenship, they would be entitled to keep and carry arms wherever they went. The second, in Miller, indicated that a court cannot take judicial notice that a short-barrelled shotgun is covered by the second amendment — but the Court did not indicate that National Guard status is in any way required for protection by that amendment, and indeed defined "militia" to include all citizens able to bear arms. The third, a footnote in Lewis v. United States, indicated only that "these legislative restrictions on the use of firearms" — a ban on possession by felons — were permissable . But since felons may constitutionally be deprived of many of the rights of citizens, including that of voting, this dicta reveals little. These three comments constitute all significant explanations of the scope of the second amendment advanced by our Supreme Court. The case of Adam v. Williams has been cited as contrary to the principle that the second amendment is an individual right. In fact, that reading of the opinion comes only in Justice Douglas's dissent from the majority ruling of the Court."

And...

"Finally, the individual rights interpretation gives full meaning to the words chosen by the first Congress to reflect the right to keep and bear arms. The framers of the Bill of Rights consistently used the words "right of the people" to reflect individual rights — as when these words were used to recognize the "right of the people" to peaceably assemble, and the "right of the people" against unreasonable searches and seizures. They distinguished between the rights of the people and of the state in the Tenth Amendment. As discussed earlier, the "militia" itself referred to a concept of a universally armed people, not to any specifically organized unit. When the framers referred to the equivalent of our National Guard, they uniformly used the term "select militia" and distinguished this from "militia". Indeed, the debates over the Constitution constantly referred to the organized militia units as a threat to freedom comparable to that of a standing army, and stressed that such organized units did not constituted, and indeed were philosophically opposed to, the concept of a militia.

That the National Guard is not the "Militia" referred to in the second amendment is even clearer today. Congress has organized the National Guard under its power to "raise and support armies" and not its power to "Provide for the organizing, arming and disciplining the Militia". 65 This Congress chose to do in the interests of organizing reserve military units which were not limited in deployment by the strictures of our power over the constitutional militia, which can be called forth only "to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions." The modern National Guard was specifically intended to avoid status as the constitutional militia, a distinction recognized by 10 U.S.C. Sec. 311(a)."
http://www.constitution.org/mil/rkba1982.htm



Next?

[jgraz]

196. Go ahead, quote Dred Scott some more

That's such a respected decision. Right up there with Bush v Gore. Maybe you can pull out the Articles of Confederation next. Tell me again, how many times has Dred Scott been cited as precendent? How many of those other cases?

The non-existence of an individual RKBA is acknowledged as "well-settled law" by anyone who isn't a drooling gun fetishist. Once again, you avoid the question: How many Second Amendment cases has the NRA won?

[jmg257]

200. One of only three SC decisions - and hey - it supports the "individual" argument!

Who cares which cases the NRA won? But since you asked, they did win in SF: San Francisco Superior Court Judge James Warren struck down the San Francisco handgun ban, asserting that under California law (understood NOT federal) local officials do not have the authority to ban firearms from law-abiding citizens. The National Rifle Association (NRA) opposed the ban from its inception.

and in NO: "SAF was joined in the landmark New Orleans lawsuit last September by the National Rifle Association on behalf of SAF and NRA members residing in the storm area. No matter what the circumstances, lawful gun owners have the right to possess their firearms in their homes. And if forced to evacuate, they have the right to transport their firearms to a safe place. Nobody has the right to disarm them. That’s what this legislation ensures," said NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris Cox. The new state law, which took effect immediately, makes it clear that emergency powers granted to the governor and local officials "do not authorize the seizure or confiscation of a firearm, weapon, or ammunition from any individual if the firearm, weapon or ammunition is being possessed or used lawfully."



The recent DC ruling (NOT an NRA case) shows it is NOT settled law, the 5th circuit in Emerson, as does ANY case which supports the true individual intent. Only those who disagree (anti-gunners) with the amendment spout about it be "well-settled". 1/3 of the time the USSC supported individual, 1/3 they defined "militia" to include all citizens, who armed themselves, and are able to bear arms, AND for the people to have access to 'military equipment', and 1/3 they indicated only that "these legislative restrictions on the use of firearms" — a ban on possession by felons — were permissable.

Hardly seems "well-settled" to MANY of us out here in the real world.

[jgraz]

143. Cite your court precedent please

Cuz I got a bunch of 'em that say you're full of shit.


Edit: they're in post 144 just in case you're curious (I'm guessing you're not)

[Irreverend IX]

130. "Individuals?" That's "the people."

The Army and National Guard did not exist when the constitution was written. The United States Code defines the militia as all males aged 17-45; basically everyone who's fit to fight. The Swiss citizen-soldier model is more or less what existed in the early US, but without any central organization. The formation of the Army and National Guard did not nullify the section of the US Code pertaining to the militia, and some states still have official militias of their own. All these facts has been posted many times before.

None of that is particularly relevant, though, because the first clause of the Second Amendment is simply a rationale for the amendment with no legal weight. Such things were common in 18th century law, but it isn't done anymore because it causes confusion. If you don't believe me, maybe you'll believe this Yale Law Journal article:

http://www.guncite.com/journals/embar.html

"A well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state" does not contain any language prohibiting Congress from doing anything.

[jgraz]

144. crap. absolute, total, unmitigated crap

"None of that is particularly relevant, though, because the first clause of the Second Amendment is simply a rationale for the amendment with no legal weight. Such things were common in 18th century law, but it isn't done anymore because it causes confusion. If you don't believe me, maybe you'll believe this Yale Law Journal article"

No, I think I'll stick to actual court rulings if you don't mind. You know full well what these are, but I'll cite them anyway so you can't pretend they don't exist.

"Since the Second Amendment right 'to keep and bear arms' applies only to the right of the state to maintain a militia, and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right of an individual to possess a firearm." (Stevens v. U.S., United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, 1971).

"Construing according to its plain meaning, it seems clear that the right to bear arms is inextricably connected to the preservation of a militia . . . We conclude that the right to keep and bear handguns is not guaranteed by the Second Amendment." (Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 1982)

"Making a firearm without approval may be subject to criminal sanction, as is possession of an unregistered firearm and failure to pay the tax on one, 26 U.S.C. 5861, 5871." (UNITED STATES, PETITIONER v. THOMPSON/CENTER ARMS COMPANY, on writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the federal circuit, June 8, 1992)

"We follow our sister circuits in holding that the Second Amendment is a right held by the states and does not protect the possession of a weapon by a private citizen." (Hickman v. City of Los Angeles, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, April 5, 1996)

And of course, the grand-daddy of them all, United States v. Miller, 1939, which rejected the individual RKBA and has been upheld in every federal gun case since.


Now can you please name the court rulings that support your interpretation of the Second Amendment? Just one?

[CJ5]

124. So only the government can make the call to arms?

This is nothing like the founders discussed. The main point of the 2nd was to allow the citizens to defend themselves from the tyranny of government. There is no misunderstanding about that. How do you square that with your idea above?

[jgraz]

146. There is no misunderstanding of that??

Please point out ANY writing of the founding fathers that supports your claim. Their ideal was to create a way to overturn the government through legal, peaceful means -- e.g. The Constitution. Why would they include an amendment to enable armed insurrection?

This is the main problem with the gun nuts: the absolute intellectual dishonesty of your arguments. You assert these NRA talking points and you don't have the first fucking clue what you're talking about.

[Old and In the Way]

152. Well said jgraz.

It bears repeating:

Their ideal was to create a way to overturn the government through legal, peaceful means -- e.g. The Constitution. Why would they include an amendment to enable armed insurrection?

I don't understand why the words in the 2nd Amendment are so difficult to comprehend. I even provided definitions for them.

[CJ5]

163. You are correct but you are also incorrect.

Yes, there is a means through the Constitution to change government and there is no mistake in that. However, there is also a means to change tyrannical government if it was needed. It would be intellectually dishonest to believe that the founders would set a foundation of their new government that eliminated the citizens ability to defend themselves and/or overthrow a tyrannical government. They had just went through this with England. There own words repeat why the right to bear arms is so important. Are we to overlook their own words?

[jgraz]

170. Please supply "there (sic) own words"

If you're so sure that the founding fathers wanted armed citizen to be able to overthrow their carefully crafted government, you should be able to cite some clear examples of that. Any quotes from Jefferson or Madison? How about your conservative heroes Hamilton or Adams? No?

See, it's all a fantasy you get from too much Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. There's no there there.

[CJ5]

179. Ok, how about all of them...

The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.
-- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ... "
-- Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)

the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
--James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."
--Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356

No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,

[jgraz]

188. Sorry, wrong again

None of those support and individual right to bear arms. And to quote Jefferson is the height on intellectual dishonesty, given his true position on the 2nd amendment.

It's useless for you and I to bandy about our own interpretations of the 2nd amendment. Let's get some from people who are trained and paid and appointed for life to interpret it:

"Since the Second Amendment right 'to keep and bear arms' applies only to the right of the state to maintain a militia, and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right of an individual to possess a firearm." (Stevens v. U.S., United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, 1971).

"Construing according to its plain meaning, it seems clear that the right to bear arms is inextricably connected to the preservation of a militia . . . We conclude that the right to keep and bear handguns is not guaranteed by the Second Amendment." (Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 1982)

"Making a firearm without approval may be subject to criminal sanction, as is possession of an unregistered firearm and failure to pay the tax on one, 26 U.S.C. 5861, 5871." (UNITED STATES, PETITIONER v. THOMPSON/CENTER ARMS COMPANY, on writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the federal circuit, June 8, 1992)

"We follow our sister circuits in holding that the Second Amendment is a right held by the states and does not protect the possession of a weapon by a private citizen." (Hickman v. City of Los Angeles, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, April 5, 1996)

[CJ5]

194. Both sides can play this game, also

U.S. v. Emerson, No. 99-10331 (Fifth Circuit, 1999) upheld individual rights to bear arms.

and

Parker v District of Columbia (Fifth Circuit, 2007) upholds an individuals right as well.


What we need is a clear ruling from the US Supreme Court. I will argue with any ruling that claims there is not an individual right just as you will argue the other way.

Again, I ask you to answer one question. How do you reconcile the fact the founders drafted the Bill of Rights (individual rights and there is no argument there) but somehow decided to squeeze in a States right in the 2nd. They didn't! The second is a right of the people just like the first and next 10.

[jgraz]

195. The second amendment was a compromise, as you well know

backed off from Jefferson's desire to have no standing armies in the US. That's why the language is so carefully framed and so unfortunately ambiguous. BTW, the Tenth Amendment also deals with states' rights, so the Second is not alone here.

The concept of no individual RKBA is currently the law of the land, until these cases make it to your precious Bush Court. Both decisions fly in the face of Stare Decisis, something which all of the Bush appointees have said they will uphold (of course, they were lying).

So, now the supposed "liberal" gun fetishists are left in the awkward position of cheering on this immoral, subliterate farce of a Supreme Court as they once again invent law based on their own political ideology. Now Scalito will allow you to own a machine gun. Woohoo. Maybe you can use it to hold off the cops while your daughter has an abortion.

[CJ5]

205. The 2nd was a compromise

but it was not a surrender of individual rights. The tenth is more or less a conclusion to the bill so you cannot say the it stands together with the 2nd as a "State" right.

IN US v Miller the court nowhere in its opinion stated the the individual does not have a right to bear arms. In US v Hutzell the right to bear arms was cited as protected and the same was true in US v Emerson.

Lets just assume your interpretation is correct in that only individuals in a militia are allowed to bear arms. We then would both argue what was the intention of the founders in using militia. I would argue that the intention was to allow citizen to bear arms and form militias for many reasons but one of the reasons cited by the founders was to keep government in check. Thus, it would be wrong to assume that only a government controlled militia is what was intended. The founders were all extremely afraid of the powers of government. Would they have intended to strip the people of the ability to defend themselves from it?



And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress ... to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.... "
--Samuel Adams

[jgraz]

208. So by your reasoning, we need access to military hardware

After all, you ain't gonna defend yourself against the government with your handgun -- even the ridiculous, kill-everybody models that Cho was using. As many of your fellow gun-nuts point out, those weapons only work on unarmed citizens.

I'll make the same request I make to all the Rambo-philes: tell me your heroic fantasy about how you would defend your home against the black helicopters. Do you think you should have access to stealth bombers? Tactical nukes? Cuz any US government willing to completely overthrow the Constitution is not going to have any problem using them on you.

[CJ5]

209. You are beginning to lose it

You are now becoming ridiculous. Is it because you have not been able to prove your point?

I have not heard any gun nuts claim that "those weapons" only work on unarmed citizens. Please cite source.

I am not sure what my chances would be if it required me to take up arms against my government. I guess I would feel it to be as hopeless as the majority of citizens felt in early 1700's. I do know though that there was a minority of patriots who were willing to die to defend individual rights and were willing to take on an empire. In the end they won and because of that I enjoy liberty and freedoms that I could not enjoy in any other country in world.

I will pose the same question to you. How would you go about defending yourself if your government decided to go they way of Pol Pot, Hitler (you name your own worse case scenario).

[jgraz]

210. You know the source as well as I do

The crux of the argument in favor of campus CCW is that the students would have stopped the gunman. I'm not going to waste time pointing you at posts in this very thread.

Now you're comparing yourself to the Continental Army? Who's becoming ridiculous now? In that case, both sides had relatively comparable weaponry. That's not true any longer.

I will pose the same question to you. How would you go about defending yourself if your government decided to go they way of Pol Pot, Hitler (you name your own worse case scenario).

The same way I would defend myself if aliens landed from Mars and started frying people. Or if Jesus comes back and starts throwing all the hethens into the pits of hell. I would do the best I could under the circumstances, but the question is bullshit on its face.

This is not Germany, defeated in war and with no established history of democracy. This is not Cambodia. The chances that the governement would do that here may have increased during the past six years, but they are still miniscule. Living your life according to this kind of paranoid fantasy is the definition of mental illness. Insisting that we all pay in blood for your delusions is criminal.

[CJ5]

216. You asked the question not I

I think those who say armed students would have stopped the gunman are making wild leaps.

If a scenario were to develop were government became so tyrannical that it required the citizens to rise up, then yes, I guess you could compare it to the Continental Army.

You can use language the paints me as delusional but the fact remains my so-called "delusions" are indicative of history. Times change, countries change and governments change. That is a fact, my friend. It is not a paranoid fantasy it is reality. You have no guarantee that this country or any other in the world will be concerned about your or my individual rights. In fact, I would say history proves that this country will not remain like it is today nor will it remain like the founders intended. Is there any country in the world that has remained the same since its founding? It is not delusional thinking it is realistic thinking.

Again, you are losing your ability to communicate effectively with someone who may have a difference of opinion. I have no paranoid fantasies nor do I have a mental illness or am I criminal. Is that what you determine to be everyones problem when they have a difference of opinion? I have not asked you to pay in blood for anything. You must decide for yourself what is important enough to risk your own life in defense of your liberty and freedom.

My point in this whole discussion comes down to one thing. The repel and/or severe altering of the 2nd amendment will not stop (using your word) "insane" violence. Man will be violent against man until the end of time. If you believe that taking away law-abiding citizens right to bear arms is the answer then that is your belief. However, in doing so you must understand that you belief is depriving others of their belief.

[jgraz]

217. So it should be easy to prove you're not delusional

Explain to me how our current situation parallels the Weimar Republic or post-war Cambodia. Then explain how the "government" will suddenly impose some tyrannical authority without the support of large portions of the population.

Tell me, in your comic-book fantasy of standing up for Mom and Apple Pie, just who do you think will be shooting back? Do you think it will be only the military, putting down the entire 300,000,000-strong population? Or do you expect to see some of your fellow gun fetishists staring back at you?

If you even think about your scenario for a few minutes, the entire rationale becomes laughable, That's why I call you delusional. It's a bit more charitable than calling you a liar.

[CJ5]

218. Insults always win arguments, huh...

Governments have imposed tyrannical authority over the population throughout history, with and without large population support. I did not say anything about suddenly, though that has happened as well. To pretend "it won't happen here" is no different than the "it won't happen to me" syndrome that is always exposed as false. You must not have used much thought in my scenario because if you did you will find it is exactly the catalyst that formed this country.

Your problem is you can call me delusional and you can call me a liar, but my "comic book fantasy" is based in fact.

[jgraz]

220. Most delusional fantasies start out with facts

That doesn't make them less delusional (which is not, btw, an insult -- it's a psychologically accurate description of mental state based on false beliefs).

Once again, don't quote history at me. Explain how it can happen HERE. Then explain how your access to 33-round semi-automatic concealable weapons prevents it.

[CJ5]

222. I do not think you are capable of grasping the idea

You refuse to acknowledge the historical facts that prove me correct. I cannot predict the future I can only look at what history tells me. You cannot predict the future you must also rely on history. I can only state as fact that most men, when presented with a situation that deprives them of their liberty and freedom, will act. Unfortunately, many do not. Which brings us back full circle. Citizens who are stripped of their individual rights to bear arms are no threat to those who govern them. The founders understood this, thus the 2nd Amendment.


Have a good weekend....I am heading out with my boys fishing/camping...I wonder if we should bring our guns? Wouldn't want to get caught without them in-case an insurrection needs to take place. lol

[jgraz]

224. "You refuse to acknowledge the historical facts that prove me correct"

Hmmm...can you perhaps guess why?

Have fun camping with your boys. I sincerely hope they make it to adulthood without shooting themselves with one of your toys.

[Old and In the Way]

181. Let me know when the gun-owners of America decide to overthrow King George.

Looks to me like he's got your vote "locked up". I think we can do away with that fantasy. You guys are quite happy letting this guy destroy the Constitution....as long as you get to keep your guns.

[CJ5]

190. All politicians erode the Constitution

That is the problem. Of course, if sane people like you and I cannot agree what rights the Constitution grants us individually why should we not be surprised when politicians use it to expand their rights and/or limit ours.

[Old and In the Way]

230. No, that's not true.

But you did confirm my point by defending the most corrupted administration we've ever had who are working to consolidate yet more power in the WH. Guns and Bush....yeeeeahhhh! Screw the Constitution, git me more bullets!

[BLUSH]

232. Bush isn't the decider

He's the eroder!

[CJ5]

162. Who is being dishonest?

There are plenty of writings on the subject. Federalist 46, Henry, Dickerson, Webster, Madison, Hamilton and many more. History and the founders knew that disarming the people was the first step to enslave them. They had this issue in England. They understood that the right to bear arms was the sole reason they were able to defend themselves from British tyranny. The papers and discussion they had explicitly talked about maintaining that right for the future.

[jgraz]

171. And what was the real motivation for the 2nd amendment?

While we're being so "honest"? What's the interpretation that courts have used over and over again? To all states to have a militia. I've cited only some of the many court precedents that prove this, yet you continue to pretend that your fantasy interpretation is somehow correct.

Here's a little quiz for you: Can you tell me how many 2nd amendment cases the NRA has won?

[CJ5]

185. Your interpretation rings hollow.

I am not sure how many cases the NRA has won, though I am sure there are plenty of win and losses to be cited. I am not a member and am not all that familiar with their court cases.

I do know that the Supreme Court has only entertained 5 cases and I have not read in any of them where they have overruled the individuals right to bear arms. Can you cite for me where it is unconstitutional for individuals to bear arms?

[jgraz]

228. I think that hollow ring is coming from inside your skull

"I am not sure how many cases the NRA has won, though I am sure there are plenty of win and losses to be cited."

Well, you're half right. There are plenty of losses to be cited.

"Can you cite for me where it is unconstitutional for individuals to bear arms?"

No where. It is, however, VERY constitutional for the state to regulate the SHIT out of those firearms. Another thing your pretend not to know

[jgraz]

150. While you're at it, maybe you can answer this question for me

What kind of person joins a liberal forum two days after the WORST MASS SHOOTING IN US HISTORY just to make pro-gun posts?

[CJ5]

165. Easy one

I have been coming here for a long time and decided that after reading all of these gun posts it was time to say something. I am not a gun nut. I am a Constitution nut. People have a tendency to jump to conclusions about the causes of evil. Guns are not evil and the Constitution is not evil, people are evil. The second amendment is there for a reason and it has served us well. I am not a defender of the left or the right but I am a defender of the Constitution and the Republic.

You and I can debate all day about the 2nd Amendment but it doesn't change the historical facts about it or the founders intentions. I am not opposed to some government regulation with the 2nd or the first or any other part of the "the peoples rights".

What kind of person am I? Someone who believes that the evil that is responsible for the worst mass shooting in US history is not the 2nd Amendment or so-called gun nuts but an evil individual.

[BLUSH]

166. That word evil

You use it a lot. Where have I heard such use?

Oh, yeah, evildoers.

Mr President, welcome to the forum!

:)

[CJ5]

168. Please

I didn't know that that word was reserved for W. I suspect it has been around a long time.

What term would you use to describe a man who lined up and shot 32 innocent students? I think only someone who is truly evil could do that. What word would you suggest?

[Name removed]

172. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CJ5]

175. Not even close

Why is it you want to paint me into something I am not. Have you looked up the definition of evil? Is it only "a jesus-boy" would use that word? Good grief!

A am no fundie. In fact, I am not all that religious. Does having a difference of opinion from you make me that? If so, that is weird.

I agree, he needed mental health care but you assume that would solve his problem

[jgraz]

184. For a non-fundie, you sure like their rhetoric

"Evil" is a religious term, equally applied to mass-killers and those who don't respect the Sabbath. It has no place in public policy debates.

[jgraz]

174. Funny how a "Constitution nut" never quotes the Constitution

or any court interpretation of it (of course, them courts are all LIBRUL!)

Tell me, by "Constitution Nut", do you by any chance mean "strict constructionist"? I'm guessing you don't believe in a right to privacy, either. Am I getting warmer?

[CJ5]

187. Not even close n/t

[meldroc]

77. I've brought this up before.

If the Supreme Court can rule free speech can be limited when there's a compelling state interest, they can do the same thing with the Second Amendment. I do believe the Second does protect the right of law-abiding individuals to keep and bear arms, but saying the Second guarantees the right to keep and bear nuclear weapons is just stupid. Of course reasonable restrictions should be put in place - Brady Act instant background checks, requiring gun owners to be properly trained even. But the Second does prevent the government from banning guns completely. They can require permits, but if the permitting process is so obnoxious as to be a de-facto ban, that's unconstitutional.

[BluePatriot]

104. OP does have a point about one thing

If people would get in as much of a tiff about controls on the 1st Amendment as the 2nd we'd have a very vigorous, free democracy...

[Wapsie B]

128. That is so right.

One problem I have with controls on the 1st Ammendment is that my rights to free speech end at the doorsteps to my employer. But the business entity I work for has no such limitation. I know that gets into another discussion about ending corporate personhood, but still.

[Irreverend IX]

133. There's been tons of 1st Amendment activism.

Remember in the early days of the Net when practically every page had those little blue free speech ribbons? Net users mounted a huge campaign to stop the proposed online censorship laws and succeeded. The ACLU, Electronic Frontier Foundation and other groups have been working tirelessly for free speech, which is a whole lot less regulated than guns are, especially in light of its capacity to cause death and destruction. Remember what happened after the Rodney King verdict was publicized? Despite all the carnage that resulted, no one considered giving the government the capability to suppress news stories that could cause public unrest.

[BluePatriot]

161. True.

But I never really feel that 1st Amendment activism registers on the "sheeple" radar quite as much as gun issues do. Why, I have no idea. It would be nice to see the same passion regarding firearms by John Q. Public reflected in a lot of other issues facing the US that need dire attention.

[ends_dont_justify]

136. Those who have the gold, make the rules

Guns are a part of the economy, but words can break people's ineffectual fears that cause them to buy needless 'toys'.

Not to say I don't believe people shouldn't have guns. I simply think it's an unnecessary topic...we need stronger systems keeping psychopaths at bay and tyrants out of office.

Then again...look at what hitler did after he banned firearms? Guns may be the thing between us and a bush police state. I think they're necessary, but I'd like to see a day, which can happen in an immediate future with more work from the people, where democracy trumps weaponry.

[BLUSH]

138. no INDIVIDUAL right to bear arms

"Since the Second Amendment right 'to keep and bear arms' applies only to the right of the state to maintain a militia, and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right of an individual to possess a firearm," the Sixth Court of Appeals ruled in 1971 (Stevens v. United States).

"These legislative restrictions on the use of firearms are neither based upon constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do they trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties.... The Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated Militia,'" the Supreme Court reiterated in 1980 (Lewis v. United States).

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1364

[jgraz]

141. Oh please, cite a non-biased source

Y'know, one that DOESN'T destroy all the pro-gun arguments with pesky things like FACTS and HISTORY. ;)

[Sanctified]

153. Good Try...

Lewis was a convicted felon and that is why he lost his bid to posses firearms, not because the second amendment does not apply to citizens.

[slackmaster]

164. Major league logic problem here

Even if we all agree the Second Amendment isn't about a right of individuals, that does not mean such a right does not exist.

[jgraz]

177. Exist where? In the bible?

The courts have held again and again that no such right exists. Where else do you think this right is coming from?

[slackmaster]

183. No, the courts have NOT said that no such right exists

They've said in many cases that the Second Amendment does not guarantee such a right. That is NOT the same as saying it does not exist.

Ad for your question, it's a basic principle of our system that all rights exist save those that have been curtailed by due process. I refer you to the Ninth Amendment, which IMO wasn't really necessary but provides a solid clarification of what I just said:

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Argue about the meaning of the Second Amendment all you want, but the right to own guns is as fundamental as the right to grow apples. Until the law says you can't, you not only can but you have a right to do it. It's a basic principle of liberty.

[jgraz]

197. Rhetorical fluffery in this case

"Since the Second Amendment right 'to keep and bear arms' applies only to the right of the state to maintain a militia, and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right of an individual to possess a firearm." (Stevens v. U.S., United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, 1971).

"Construing according to its plain meaning, it seems clear that the right to bear arms is inextricably connected to the preservation of a militia . . . We conclude that the right to keep and bear handguns is not guaranteed by the Second Amendment." (Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 1982)

"Making a firearm without approval may be subject to criminal sanction, as is possession of an unregistered firearm and failure to pay the tax on one, 26 U.S.C. 5861, 5871." (UNITED STATES, PETITIONER v. THOMPSON/CENTER ARMS COMPANY, on writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the federal circuit, June 8, 1992)

"We follow our sister circuits in holding that the Second Amendment is a right held by the states and does not protect the possession of a weapon by a private citizen." (Hickman v. City of Los Angeles, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, April 5, 1996)

Exactly what the hell do you think the courts are saying here? WHY are they saying that there is no individual RKBA in the Second Amendment? Because they're supporting their decisions that the STATE has the right to regulate the possession of firearms.


"Argue about the meaning of the Second Amendment all you want, but the right to own guns is as fundamental as the right to grow apples. Until the law says you can't, you not only can but you have a right to do it. It's a basic principle of liberty."

Ok, we have the right to grow apples. Wanna bet how long people would be growing apples if apples had just killed 33 college students? See the spinach e coli scare last year. Did you hear ANY grocers whining about their Right to Keep and Bear Leafy Vegetables?

The state has a clear right to act for the greater good. The rights of grocers to sell spinach was trumped by the rights of children and old people not to die of massive organ failure. The EXACT SAME argument applies here, except with the caveat that the Bill of Rights provides for a well-regulated militia.

[slackmaster]

206. Of couse states have the power to regulate firearms

That's in the Tenth Amendment.

:dunce:

Nothing you have presented is inconsistent with my statement that individuals have the right to own firearms.

[jmg257]

219. Since some here LOVE court cases, how about this one? Individual Right? Damn Right!

United States v. Verdugo-Urquirdez, 110 S. Ct. 3039 (1990). This case involved the meaning of the term "the people" in the Fourth Amendment. The Court unanimously held that the term "the people" in the Second Amendment had the same meaning as in the Preamble to the Constitution and in the First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, i.e., that "the people" means at least all citizens and legal aliens while in the United States.

This case thus resolves any doubt that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right.

[Sanctified]

140. Couple of Points

The Constitution was written after the founding fathers had just fought a bloody war against an oppressive government where the personal ownership of firearms is what allowed them to win. The founding fathers also understood that if the government they were forming was to become oppressive in the future the citizens would need the ability to overthrow that government.

Also the second amendment was written in a way to include two separate ideas.

First:

A well regulated Militia,
being necessary to the security of a free state,

Second:
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,
shall not be infringed.

The Founding fathers were not stupid there was no reason to mention the peoples right to bear arms if only militias were to be armed. Also the constitution was not written as a document to list the rights of citizens but as a document that lists the rights of the Government.

[BLUSH]

142. not an individual right to bear arms

Saul Cornell has achieved something extraordinary – he has finally laid to rest the debate over the Second Amendment – something no other historian has been able to do. A Well Regulated Militia showcases the craft of a true historian. His arguments are balanced, his writing is sharp and articulate, and his narrative is fascinating. In fact, historians from the entire political spectrum have praised Cornell’s scholarship.

In telling the history of the Second Amendment, Cornell also tells the story of early America. According to Cornell, one must understand the world and mindset of the Founders and the array of challenges confronting the new nation. When the Founders reject a standing army, they also know the new nation must be able to defend itself – hence the advent of the militias. But the militias were in fact, extremely “well regulated.”

Cornell says that bearing arms was a “civic duty” for national defense, not an individual right to bear arms.

http://www.buzzflash.com/store/items/318

[Sanctified]

151. Why guess what the forefathers thought when they wrote it down.

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." - Thomas Jefferson

[jgraz]

198. Speaking of natural manure...

None of Jefferson's comments support an INDIVIDUAL RKBA. Witness the court decisions:

"Since the Second Amendment right 'to keep and bear arms' applies only to the right of the state to maintain a militia, and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right of an individual to possess a firearm." (Stevens v. U.S., United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, 1971).

"Construing according to its plain meaning, it seems clear that the right to bear arms is inextricably connected to the preservation of a militia . . . We conclude that the right to keep and bear handguns is not guaranteed by the Second Amendment." (Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 1982)

"Making a firearm without approval may be subject to criminal sanction, as is possession of an unregistered firearm and failure to pay the tax on one, 26 U.S.C. 5861, 5871." (UNITED STATES, PETITIONER v. THOMPSON/CENTER ARMS COMPANY, on writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the federal circuit, June 8, 1992)

"We follow our sister circuits in holding that the Second Amendment is a right held by the states and does not protect the possession of a weapon by a private citizen." (Hickman v. City of Los Angeles, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, April 5, 1996)

[barb162]

154. Neither is an absolute right. Can a ten year old buy a gun in your state

[mmonk]

158. Because advocates of any issue usually take an extreme position

on their pet issue. Human nature and they have the numbers right now.

[BLUSH]

159. What was that song by Jim Morrison

"They've got the guns but we've got the numbers."

[Kelly Rupert]

180. The right to bear arms is by no means absolute.

I can't carry a gun on my campus. I can't carry a gun on an airplane, or into my state legislature. I can't own a rocket-propelled grenade launcher. I can't get a gun without a background check and waiting period. I think that all of these are perfectly reasonable and necessary restrictions on the right to bear arms.

In comparison, free speech is absolutely unabridged. I can't yell fire in a crowded theater, but I certainly can't brandish a handgun either.

[LanternWaste]

193. I don't think that there are any absolute rights...

I don't think that there are any absolute rights. It appears to me that each established right has both qualifiers and exceptions.

Although it's good copy to ignore the qualifiers of one while at the same time over-advertise the qualifiers of the other, it's certainly not a valid way to open a dialog-- a heated argument? Sure, but not dialog.

[BLUSH]

213. THE SECOND AMENDMENT

THE SECOND AMENDMENT

What does the Second Amendment Mean?

How often have you heard someone argue against gun control laws by claiming: "Gun ownership is a constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment"? The assertion that the Second Amendment to our Constitution guarantees a broad, individual right to "keep and bear arms" and that it precludes any reasonable restrictions on guns is the philosophical foundation of the National Rifle Association's opposition to even the most modest gun control measures.

The NRA's constitutional theory is, however, divorced from legal and historical reality. It is based on carefully worded disinformation about the text and history of the Second Amendment and a systematic distortion of judicial rulings interpreting the Amendment. The result is a Second Amendment "mythology" which has been difficult to counter.

The History of The Second Amendment: Original Meaning And Intent

The Second Amendment states: "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 NRA tends to omit the first, crucial, half of the Second Amendment - the words referring to a "well-regulated militia."

When the U.S. Constitution was adopted, each of the states had its own "militia" - a military force comprised of ordinary citizens serving as part-time soldiers. The militia was "well-regulated" in the sense that its members were subject to various requirements such as training, supplying their own firearms, and engaging in military exercises away from home. It was a form of compulsory military service intended to protect the fledgling nation from outside forces and from internal rebellions.

The "militia" was NOT, as the gun lobby will often claim, simply another word for the populace at large. Indeed, membership in the 18th century militia was generally limited to able-bodied white males between the ages of 18 and 45 - hardly encompassing the entire population of the nation.

The U.S. Constitution established a permanent professional army, controlled by the federal government. With the memory of King George III's troops fresh in their minds, many of the "anti-Federalists" feared a standing army as an instrument of oppression. State militias were viewed as a counterbalance to the federal army and the Second Amendment was written to prevent the federal government from disarming the state militias.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=second

[jmg257]

237. Now, can you site Mein Kampf for some information about Jewish folks?

The constitution (1788) gave powers to the Congress that were formally powers of the states - to provide for organizing, arming and disciplining THE Militia of the several states, and to provide for how they would be called forth. (which Congress 1st did in the Militia Act of 1792 - people armed themselves AS ALWAYS (including pistols!), discipline was via Van Stuben's Blue Book, organization was spelled out, the Militia would be called out for/when etc etc.)

In the Bill of Rights (1791), WHICH AMENDED THE CONSTITUTION, the people wanted to MAKE SURE the Congress with their new power would NOT infringe on THEIR INDIVIDUAL Right to keep and bear arms, and would NOT do away with THE STATE armed and well-trained militias - so they protected the former explicitly, and further recognized and "required" the latter, in the 2nd Amendment. Infringement of the individual right is unconstitutional, and so is malfeasance with regards to the militia.

Because the 2nd ALSO became part of "the supreme law of the Land" - "anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding", NEITHER could the States infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, nor make THE Militia obsolete.

That is it - the 2nd requires THE well-armed well trained Militia of the several states, AND protects THE Right of the people; ALL as the supreme Law.


THE Militia existed already, "the militia of the several states" is well-recognized as exisiting by the constitution AND as being separate from the Army and Navy ("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;"). Congress did NOT get power to create or re-create the miltia, and it is NOT the army.

The Right of the people to keep and bear arms also existed already - it was secured in the militia clauses, and is further recognized AND PROTECTED by the 2nd amendment.


Don't like the amendment - get it changed, but DO NOT be dishonest about what it says by trying to change what it means!

[benEzra]

234. Who is arguing for the repeal of the National Firearms Act?

Under the NFA, which even the NRA supports, possession of any automatic weapon (yes, even real AK-47's and Uzi's) is a 10-year Federal felony, unless you are police, military, or obtain Federal authorization (BATFE Form 4), under the National Firearms Act (which the NRA supported in 1934 and still supports, AFAIK). Who's arguing for less restriction than speech?

In most states, you can't carry a gun in theater (or any other public place) without a state-issued license, and in my state (NC) that requires passing a Federal and state background check, an FBI fingerprint check, a mental health records check, lots of $$$ in fees, a training class using a state-issued curriculum, AND a demonstration of competence actually shooting.

The Second Amendment is ALREADY restricted more tightly than the First Amendment. No, you can't yell "fire" in a theater, but you sure as hell can't carry a gun in there without a license, either (never mind shooting it).

It's this type of uninformed BS that the repubs use to paint Dems as "gun grabbers," IMHO.



-------------
Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What? (written in 2004, largely vindicated in 2006, IMO)

[BLUSH]

235. ahem

benEzra: It's this type of uninformed BS that the repubs use to paint Dems as "gun grabbers," IMHO.


Repubs profess there is an INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms. But the second amendment refers to the PEOPLE and a WELL-REGULATED MILITIA.

If you want a gun, join the National Guard, the army, etc. (At least that's the way it would be if one were correctly interpreting the 2nd amendment.)

[jmg257]

236. I AM a "people". It IS MY right they refer to and protect. STOP SCREWING WITH IT! nt

[BLUSH]

239. No, you're a person.

The only way you should be allowed to have and use a gun is as part of the militia.

Now if only you and the NRA would stop screwing with our Constitution!

[jmg257]

241. I AM a member of the Miltia, but IS DOESN'T MATTER. ALL RIGHTS ARE INDIVIDUAL,

"powers" are collective. As in the Congress and the states have powers, but we the people have Rights - ALL of us! Even you!
ESPECIALLY, but not limited to, those RIGHTS enumerated and protected in the constitution.

[BLUSH]

246. well-regulated militia, well-regulated militia, well-regulated militia

We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration.

ACLU POLICY

"The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." --Policy #47

http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html

[benEzra]

244. The DEMOCRATIC PARTY PLATFORM says it's an individual right,

Repubs profess there is an INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms. But the second amendment refers to the PEOPLE and a WELL-REGULATED MILITIA.

The Democratic party platform says it's an individual right, half of gun owners are Dems and indies, and Sarah Brady is a repub.

And if "the people" means the right to keep and bear arms doesn't belong to persons, then please explain to me why you think that "the people" have a right to peaceably assemble, to petition the government for redress of grievances, or to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures. Because the SAME "the people" mentioned in the Second Amendment are in the First and Fourth Amendments, as well as Amendments 9 and 10.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


Amendment II

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.


Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Also notice that the right enumerated in the Second Amendment is the right of the people, NOT the right of the militia. An armed populace is a necessary precondition to a militia, not the other way around.

If you want a gun, join the National Guard, the army, etc. (At least that's the way it would be if one were correctly interpreting the 2nd amendment.)

I already own guns, as does my wife, my engineer sister, my mom, my dad, most of my coworkers, one third of U.S. women, and ~40% of households nationwide. We're keeping them, thanks.

FWIW, only about 20% of Americans support gun prohibition, about the same percentage as supports alcohol prohibition. If you want to have the Democratic party join the American Temperance Party in the political dustbin, keep pushing the prohibitionist line.

Merely raising prices on handgun magazines, and requiring certain civilian rifles to have fake adjustable stocks instead of real ones, cost the House and Senate in 1994, cost Gore the presidency in 2000 (via TN and WV, never mind Florida), and hurt Kerry badly in 2004. Care to speculate on how even a partial ban, as opposed to petty harassment, would fly?



------------
The Conservative Roots of U.S. Gun Control

Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What? (written in '04, largely vindicated in '06, IMO)

Alienated Rural Democrat

[whoneedstickets]

238. There are no ABSOLUTE rights! Only FUNDAMENTAL ones..

The term absolute right is complete nonsense and no such thing has EVER been recognized by the court. The highest level of rights the court recognizes is a fundamental right. Even these are subject to restriction using a 'strict scrutiny / compelling state interest' criteria. Speech can be regulated for the potential to incite physical harm (fighting words), political instability (seditious speech) and moral degradation (obscenity).

The second amendment, were it to be ruled a personal right, would be subject to the same standards and IS VERY MUCH subject to limitations for public safety, child safety and crime limitation purposes as policy makers see fit so long as they can assert a compelling interest-- WHICH SHOULD NOT BE HARD given the lethality of firearms!

The right of self-defense is not absolute because reasonable limits on the proportion of force used to resist harm have been identified and barring those states that have passed a 'Castle Doctrine' law otherwise one has a responsibility to flee before using force in virtually all instances. If escape is possible, violent self defense is unjustifiable. The right is not Absolute.

The right to Life is not even absolute as the state has decreed that right forfeit in the instance of a capital crime.

[jmg257]

242. The "compelling interest" falls to the requirements of the Militia however,

as the guarantees in the constitution depend on it - being well-armed and well-trained. WE are the militia as intended.
Change the amendment - you may have a point.


This "compelling governmental interest test" is hopelessly incoherent, as Justice Hugo Black, dissenting, proved in the early decision in Konigsberg v. State Bar of California, 366 U.S. 36 (1961). An even more fundamental point than Black made in that case, though, is that any government's most "compelling" interest is to protect its citizens in the enjoyment of their lives, liberties, and property. Every citizen "owes allegiance and is entitled to its protection. Allegiance and protection are, in this connection, reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other; allegiance for protection and protection for allegiance." Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 165-66 (1875). Accord, Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9, 12 (1913).

Absent protection from the government, no citizens owe allegiance to it; but absent citizens' owing allegiance to it, there can be no "government" at all, rightly understood, because a "government" without loyal citizens is a contradiction in terms. As the Declaration of Independence asserted in its indictment of King George III, "e has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us." So, how can there possibly ever be a more "compelling interest" that justifies abridging the government's most "compelling interest", upon the achievement of which its very existence and legitimacy depend?

Notwithstanding the self-contradictory nature of the "compelling governmental interest test", the courts now routinely employ it. And inasmuch as they apply it even to the First Amendment--the constitutional provision most beloved by the legal intelligentsiia, because it offers them the greatest range of opportunities for subverting, debasing, and generally corrupting America's culture--judges will certainly enforce it with even more gusto against the Second Amendment, which the legal intelligentsiia despise, fear, and desire to destroy.

Moreover, a "compelling government interest" and the "least-restrictive means" to achieve it are matters that judges themselves will decide, whilst recognizing no requirement for their decisions to rest on actual evidence, historical facts, objective standards, or even common sense.

For example, assume that Congress enacts a purported statute which bans the transportation, receipt, sale, barter, gift, transfer, or possession in interstate commerce of all handguns by private individuals. "Surely a clear-cut violation of the Second Amendment!" you say. Not so, as any $500-an-hour "gun-control" shyster attorney can easily demonstrate in the contemporary kangaroo courts:

Criminals use "concealable handguns" to commit violent crimes.

The government has a "compelling interest" in reducing the incidence of all crimes, including those committed with "concealable handguns".

Because all handguns are more or less "concealable", all handguns are "concealable handguns".

Criminals obtain handguns in the markets, white or black, which operate through or affect interstate commerce.

If all these markets were absolutely denuded of handguns, criminals could not obtain them, and then could not use them to commit crimes.

If interstate commerce were absolutely denuded of handguns, there would be none in the markets.

The only way to remove all handguns from interstate commerce is to prohibit them absolutely.

Therefore, the "least-restrictive means" to serve the "compelling interest" is to outlaw transportation, receipt, et cetera of all handguns in interstate commerce. And,

Inasmuch as they say the Second Amendment protects only the right of common individuals to possess "sporting" firearms (the Amendment's "well regulated Militia" phrase being irrelevant), the government's "compelling interest" in banning all firearms outweighs any individual's personal interest in possessing any firearm, because the suppression of crime is undoubtedly more important than the pursuit of a mere hobby.

Thus the Second Amendment is rendered (or proves itself) impotent.

Now, no true constitutionalist would ever admit that the foregoing "gun control" argument is even cogent, let alone unanswerable. To the contrary, properly contested it, and the "balancing test" on which it rests, are easily demolished. Nonetheless, this little mental exercise demonstrates that as soon as one accepts the propositions that (i) the only or best protection for "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" comes from those words in the Second Amendment, coupled solely with the further phrase "shall not be infringed", (ii) the "Arms" to which the Amendment refers have no necessary relation to " well regulated Militia", and (iii) the Amendment's prohibition on any "infringe" of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" is always subject to the Judiciary's crackbrained "compelling governmental interest test", then the path to destruction of that right is straight downhill.

For a somewhat different example, assume that Congress enacts a purported statute which bans the private possession of all firearms, and requires them to be surrendered to the BATFE for immediate destruction. On its face, such a statute is legally psychotic: On the one hand, to require individuals voluntarily to surrender their firearms to a governmental agency is to demand that they demonstrate their allegiance to the government by such an act. Yet, on the other hand, to disarm those individuals is to deny them the means of self-defense and self-preservation both from common criminals and (more importantly) from usurpers and tyrants. Self-defense is the only recourse left to citizens from common criminals when the police are not on the scene (which is most of the time), and especially when usurpers and tyrants control the police and employ them to enforce their usurpation and tyranny (which in that event is all of the time). A true "government" is obliged, as a condition of its legitimacy and authority, to provide its citizens with protection under all circumstances--which requires it to empower, enable, or at least allow those citizens to possess and use efficacious means for self-defense when it cannot protect them directly, which is the case from time to time when common criminals or psychopaths strike unexpectedly, or at all times when society finds itself ground down under the iron heels of sociopathic usurpers and tyrants. For public officials affirmatively and intentionally to make impossible self-protection by the citizens, by requiring them to surrender their firearms and render themselves utterly defenseless in the face of deadly aggression, puts an end to the citizens' "reciprocal obligation< >" of allegiance to the government. But if that allegiance is nonetheless forced by, say, requiring citizens to suffer in silence house to house searches for and seizures of firearms, under color of law, what other than tyranny has been established? A government that refuses protection to its citizens, but instead exposes them to destruction, cannot demand their allegiance; and a government that demands their allegiance without offering them protection--let alone while prohibiting them from protecting themselves--is no government at all, only a criminal conspiracy among the public officials constituting it.<4>

Thus, the very existence of such a statute, intended to further, and as an overt act evidencing, a criminal conspiracy against society, is itself a perfect legal justification for disobeying its commands, as well as any purported court order or other mechanism aimed at its enforcement. Disobedience to such a statute, order, or other mechanism could not be a crime, because "n unconstitutional act is not a law; * * * it imposes no duties; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed". Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 442 (1886). "An unconstitutional act is not a law; it binds no one". Huntington v. Worthen, 120 U.S. 97, 101-02 (1887). "An unconstitutional law is void, and is as no law. An offence created by it is not a crime." Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371, 376 (1880), quoted with approval in Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391, 408 (1963).

Observe that, in the course of this argument, the Second Amendment, "compelling governmental interests", and "least-restrictive means" find no place at all, because the first is not necessary and the other two are not proper.

http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin16.htm

[whoneedstickets]

243. No, it does not..

You can't escape the strict scrutiny standard and claim an absolute right through any rhetorical sleight of hand. The right to own guns is as subject to constraint as any other right. What you are saying is akin to saying that the free-speech provision is unassailable because of the free-press provision. You (or the guys you are cutting and pasting) are trying to have your cake and eat it by jumping back and forth on the militia issue. If the militia clause holds, STATES have the power to limit arms to those deemed militia relevant, if you want to assert that this is an individual right then you face strict scrutiny.


The quote you provide reveals how much the authors realize that the standard interpretation of rights will allow government to regulate guns and are desperate to craft a defense through absolutely horrendous logic and a lot of quasi-legalistic nonsense which has NO BASIS in the real world of con-law.

[BLUSH]

247. Merci!

"If the militia clause holds, STATES have the power to limit arms to those deemed militia relevant, if you want to assert that this is an individual right then you face strict scrutiny."


:thumbsup: