Could a state side-step the "collective" argument?

I don't think the Supreme Court will go with a "collective" interpretation, but if they do... could a state (oh, lets say Montana) that wanted all individuals to have 2A rights simply create/define a state militia consisting of all residents? That way everyone would technically be a member of the state militia and could own whatever they wanted?

As far as that goes, could a state create a "volunteer citizen police force" which anyone (in the state) could sign up for and then let them own post current production full-autos? I'm guessing that might not work... can post '86 MGs ever be owned by an individual or do they all belong to the police department, military institution, etc.?

I'm sorry, it's hard for me to believe those questions could come from anyone with adult thought processes.

I'm guessing that might not work...

I think you're guessing correctly.

K

Geez Kentak, who peed in your Cheerios?

The federal government and most of the states already have statutes making most men members of the militia.

One of the Heller amicus briefs discusses some of the absurd results of the collective interpretation, and something like what the OP described is one of them. I do not think Montana or Wyoming passing laws regarding the arming of their militias to counter federal gun control would be out of the question if a collective view prevailed (as now appears unlikely).

Making everybody a cop to get MGs would probably not work, at least from an insurance standpoint.

:confused:Folks:

Did any one read the "rephrased question" that SCOTUS said it would consider?????

The decision was done (when SCOTUS came back with the statement of what they would address), it is an individual right. The question SCOTUS must determine is: does the DC "BS" violate an individual's Second Amendment Rights.....

woofe

REALLY dont thin we have to wor about SCOTUS ruling that wa, but if they did, I see no reason states couldnt do as the OP suggests.Most states lready have an official state millita already.All you have to do is get them to supply arms (for post '86 full auto, DDs, etc), or just do it where and say you have to sppply your own weapons, and get re-imbursed, so then its "officially" ;) the property of the state, no the individal,but you keep it and the ammo at home.Makes sense to me.Oregon has a state millitia (and before someone claims it's unused, or simply a "leftover" from a long time ago, it was just formed in 1961 and works closely with the OR National Guard) under the control of the governer and the Oregon Mlitary Department.Anyone can join up AFAIK.No idea what thier current weapons policy is though.Next time I have a Tuesday off I need to call them and find out what all they do, the rules, training etc and see if I think its for me.Have been meaing too since moved here, but there is only someone in the local office on Tusdays, and I always work Tuesday.

Not sure what Kentak's beef is.Most states have thier own vrsion of the 2A in thier constitutions, which is often MUCH clearer and harderto manipulate by antis than the US 2A is.Many even expressly say it's an idividual right, so that, plut the fact most already have a state millitia, and a voluter, resere police force, it seems pretty workable to me.Maybe Ohio doesnt have a millita reserve polce force, or a clear RKBA, so he thinks no one does, and its too far fetched? Either way, the comment offered nothing except being insulting to the OP....


http://www.mil.state.or.us/SDF/index.html

Actually, I can see this being a very workable solution.

Just like we have Applications for a carry permit, modify it. Have any Montana Carry Permit holder double as a reserve in "Name Goes Here".

At this point, you are all deputized, militarized, whatever term you want. Set it up to where you buy and furnish your own weapon(s)/ ammo, are responsible for said, and state simply signs off on it. Put stringent safeguards so that you answer to nobody, unless you got nuts and become a criminal. For all intents and purposes, it is your weapon.

Bugs might need hammered out, but this is an overall workable solution. FedGov cannot really do much about it, what are they going to do, tell the state no more MGs for you all?

Woofe:
That's not the case, the SC can rule that question does not apply as individuals are not protected under the 2A. The entire question can be attacked in their ruling.

Kharn

Actually, disneyd is on to something, although not for quite the reason everybody is thinking.

The Constitution (in theory, anyway) sets a limit on how far the Federal government can go: "this far, no further."

There's nothing that says a state can't set a more restrictive limit for itself.

That does not mean that any applicable Federal law won't still apply. See, for example, states that are decriminalizing or legalizing possession and/or use of marijuana: the states have set less restrictive boundaries, and thus aren't bothering the individuals. The Feds, however, are continuing to enforce their own law. The freedom allowed by the states doesn't overrule the Federal law, it just means that the citizen won't face a second prosecution on state charges.

Another example: SCOTUS has ruled that a police officer disarming a subject under detention is not in and of itself a violation of his Constitutional rights--that is, no claim exists against the government on Constitutional grounds if the officer disarms you. Oklahoma has passed a more restrictive law, saying that an officer may not disarm an otherwise law-abiding subject. The SCOTUS opinion doesn't overrule the state in this case--it says that the Constitution permits the officer to disarm the subject, but it doesn't say that the state is forbidden to set a more restrictive set of conditions under which a subject may be disarmed. If the officer disarmed the subject other than in accordance with those conditions, a claim would exist against the state on the basis of that law, but not on Constitutional grounds.

disneyd's suggestion is an interesting one, but I agree with Kentak's suggestion (if not his presentation) that the Feds would probably disapprove of such a maneuver. The Feds have very little use for freedom and states' rights, and tend to be hostile toward both.

disneyd's second inquiry:
can post '86 MGs ever be owned by an individual or do they all belong to the police department, military institution, etc.? In Las Vegas and other cities there are gun stores with shooting ranges where you can shoot a new machine gun, not a pre-'86. They allow these ranges to purchase them as 'demonstror' models direct from the manufacturer, presumably to demonstrate them to law enforcement agencies, but the range can also demonstrate them to anyone who walks in the door. Demonstration means you get to shoot them, not just watch. If you visit Las Vegas, go shoot a machine gun.

I've spoken with several range owners, who buy these post-86 guns at a reasonable cost, not the wildly inflated cost of pre-86 guns. Maybe someone on this Forum can tell us more about those rules.

ants,

That makes sense. Perhaps the dealer is the legal owner, or, perhaps the manufacturer retains ownership and the dealer acts as his agent in demonstrating the weapon. One of the ranges I go to in central Ohio rents MGs to shoot at the range. I never asked if they were pre- or post-86, but I will the next time I'm in there. I haven't shot one yet, mostly because of the cost involved in shooting up a lot of expensive ammo very quickly.

K

Well, we already have a state law something to the effect of "anyone otherwise lawfully carrying a gun is legal to carry inside a school zone". This does not apply to inside the school buildings, however.

The question they adopted showed that the real question was the scope of the right, not the existence of one.

The collective rights theory has been dead for at least a decade IMO.

The Michigan state constitution provides it is an indivdual right. Of cousre the state regulates it.

but I agree with Kentak's suggestion (if not his presentation) that the Feds would probably disapprove of such a maneuver. The Feds have very little use for freedom and states' rights, and tend to be hostile toward both.

I agree with this too.I think the idea IS workable at the state level for sure (and SHOULD work as a whole in general IN THEORY, as I personally think the VAST majority of issues should be up to the states, especially when they pass laws allowing something, but the feds still want to ban it.IN PRINCIPLE, I think the states should legally and constitutionally win out at that point, and the feds be forced to not go against the states wishes, in issues not EXPRESSLY spelled out in the constitution as being federal domain), but dont disagree with anyone who think it could be made moot by the feds raiding people and charging under federal law.The States with medical marijuana was a good example.Keeps the state of your back, but the feds are another matter.Where I think this one would turn out a little different, is that states, and the people of most states, would be willing to buck the feds a lot harder on this issue than they are/would marijuana, due to the number of gun owners vs. current medical marijuana users and/or supporters.Guse what Im saying it would would likely get pretty ugly if this were done and the states and the feds both decide to really stick to thier guns on it.

I don't think the Supreme Court will go with a "collective" interpretation, but if they do... could a state (oh, lets say Montana) that wanted all individuals to have 2A rights simply create/define a state militia consisting of all residents? That way everyone would technically be a member of the state militia and could own whatever they wanted?

They could, yeah, but a lot of states have solved this in their state constitutions by simply stating that the RKBA is an individual right not tied to militia duty at all.

For example:

Arizona - 1912

26. Bearing arms

Section 26. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.

There's a whole list at:

http://members.iquest.net/~petedrum/

Alaska's rocks.

As to a state creating a full-auto-free zone via a universal police system...I think in theory they *could*...but in practice, the legal liability they might take on would block the concept.

Tennessee State Constitution Article 1 Section 26
protects the right to the citizen to keep and bear arms
but reserves the authority to regulate the wearing
of arms in public with a view to prevent crime.

TN State Supreme Court rulings and State Attorney General
opinions have been pretty consistent: the ordinary uses
of guns--militia service training, hunting, defense of
livestock from predators, personal protection at home or
place of business, etc.--are protected; regulations must
be with a view to prevent crime without interfering with
the protected uses of guns by the law abiding.

Despite the best efforts by "collective rights" scholars like
Michael Bellesiles in the Chicago-Kent or John Donohue in
the Fordham Law Review symposia on the Second Amemdment,
the Standard Model has been the individual rights interpretation
since about 1980. Chicago-Kent organizer Carl T. Bogus rejected
an article that simply explained the Standard Model for consideration
for the Chicago-Kent symposium and explained to the author that
the Standard Model (2A individual right) had been over-represented
in the recent literature on the 2A.

I don't think the SCotUS will rule against the Standard Model in
Heller and the State of Tennesse has followed the Standard Model
since 1870.

Could a local jurisdiction make a law requiring gun owership?

Do a search for Kennesaw Ga gun law.

A tease:
"In March 1982, responding to the passage of a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Illinois, and the fawning media coverage that accompanied it, the city council of Kennesaw, Georgia, decided to make a statement of its own. With exceptions duly made for convicted felons, the disabled, and those with religious objections, the council passed (unanimously) an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun."

Hey, disneyd,

Maybe somebody did pee in my Cheerios. I shouldn't have responded to your post so personally. :o

First, I'm not sure how an unfavorable ruling in Heller would change much. And, yes, many states do have pro-RKBA in their own constitutions or laws. However, keep in mind that FLL and other federal legislation still rules their turf. In other words, a state can't override the post-86 MG ban. Your suggestion of a state allowing any doofus off the street to become a volunteer LEO and buy his own MG was just too much of a strain on my little reality-based brain.

K

Could a local jurisdiction make a law requiring gun owership?

I suppose. But, I'm not sure I'd like that any more than a ban. Should have the freedom to choose.

K

The availability of citizens familiar with arms makes the concept
of the governor calling up a militia or the sheriff calling up a
posse a workable concept in the first place.

Back in the eighties, an acquaitance wrote that when he was in
the Texas National Guard they had plans based on what to do
if the NG armory was destroyed/occupied: they would rondevouz
with their personal arms and vehicles with the uniforms they
kept at home. That is pretty close to the militia concept outlined
in Miller 1939.

The original civilian marksmanship program, National Board for the
Promotion of Rifle Practice, recognized that civilians familiar with
firearms were an asset in times of national emergency. Even
Harry Truman and Hubert Humphrey recognized the contributions
of the NBPRP and the NRA to national preparedness.

(The side issue, that armed citizens who can support a just government
can also deter or overthrow an unjust government is that: a side
issue that belongs in theoretical rather than practical politics. We
won't win many neutrals or fence sitters on that issue.)

A case can be made that self defense with guns at deters or
prevents crimes more than criminals with guns cause crimes; and,
gun control disarms primarily the law abiding and is evaded by the
criminal anyway. Anything you can do wrong with a gun is already
against the law--murder, armed robbery, assault, reckless
endangerment--and the prolifieration of gun laws weakens the
enforcement of laws against criminal acts. Gun owners number in
the millions, gun criminals in the thousands.

National defense and self defense are good arguments for the citizen's
right to keep and bear arms. But they are not the only reason why
people own and use guns, and the recreational use and curio and relic
collection of firearms are legitimate reasons for owning guns.

The British gun laws in the 1960s eliminated self defense as a reason
for a fireams certificate: guns could only be for target shooting or
hunting.

The New York gun laws were changed in the 1970s: the state supreme
court ruled that the only reason for issuing a Sullivan Act hand gun
license in New York City was self defense, and target shooting only
licenses were ended.

Opposite assumptions are also in the gun transportation laws of Tennessee
and Virginia. Carrying a gun openly in the passenger compartment of
a car is illegal "going armed" in Tennessee: good citizens lock their gun
in the trunk; however, in Virginia locking a gun in the trunk of a car is
illegal concealed carry: good citizens openly display their guns in the
passenger compartment for all to see.

We do not need a Heller decision that restricts guns to only national
defense, or self defense, or recreational shooting: we need a recognition
of all legitimate gun uses: protection of all uses, not proscription to
certain uses. And we don't need law based on contradictory assumptions.