Ok, first the line you all know and love:
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.
I actually read the 9th circuit decision on collective right vs individual rights. If you want to read it yourself, click here.
It did open my eyes to "court thinking" (different from "real actual live human being thinking").
First, I always previously thought that the word "state" in the 2nd Amendment, referred to "the state" as the overall government of the United States. It doesn't. Its actually refers to individual states, in the framer's eyes.
In the literal interpretation of the 2nd amendment, one can argue that it was written to prevent the FEDERAL government from disarming STATE militias...that the framers, who looked at the Federal government not as an all powerful monolithic organization that dwarfed and controls the states..., but as a collection of "local" governments that agreed to a form of organization that binded them all. In that way of thinking, by passing a specific provision that allowed state governments to stay armed, it would prevent overall domination by the Federal government.
If that was the intent, it failed...the Civil War established the preeminence of the Federal government.
In the process, the state Militia's were "taken over" by the Federal government...and the concept of "free state" (as in one of the 50 states being free from overarching control) is destroyed in a manner the framers tried to avoid.
Because of that, I now would love to see an actual legal arguement involving "rights transfer"...that is, that while the framers put in the 2nd amendment to prevent the tight control of state citizenry...it failed. The intent is not followed. The right of a "free state" (one of the 50 states, that is) to bear arms should now be "transferred" (probably a bad legal term in this discussion, but I am not a lawyer) to the individual to preserve the intent of the Constitution.
After all, if there is an implied right to privacy in the Consititution (according to the Supreme Court) there darn well should be an implied individual right to a firearm once state militias lost any semblance of independence. The second amenment is NOT there to preserve a right for the Federal government...and the right it DID preserve for state government has been destroyed...
So, if the "right" is destroyed by the current government organizational model, where does the "right" go? Is it gone, or does it "move"...?
Anti gun forces would argue the right is destroyed. That's a foolish arguement, as it bodes poorly for our other rights, and sets a precedent that an organizational change in government structure that inadvertently destroys rights is "ok"...
I would submit that the right should not be considered destroyed...that it must live on, and just as our government has changed, so must the right change, by transferring ownership to the individual.
I wonder if that would make a good supreme court arguement...Judges need a legal framework to pass such law...I would hope this is it...that the right to bear arms as evisioned has been destroyed by Federal control of state militias, and therefore it should extend to the citizenry of the US.
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.
I actually read the 9th circuit decision on collective right vs individual rights. If you want to read it yourself, click here.
It did open my eyes to "court thinking" (different from "real actual live human being thinking").
First, I always previously thought that the word "state" in the 2nd Amendment, referred to "the state" as the overall government of the United States. It doesn't. Its actually refers to individual states, in the framer's eyes.
In the literal interpretation of the 2nd amendment, one can argue that it was written to prevent the FEDERAL government from disarming STATE militias...that the framers, who looked at the Federal government not as an all powerful monolithic organization that dwarfed and controls the states..., but as a collection of "local" governments that agreed to a form of organization that binded them all. In that way of thinking, by passing a specific provision that allowed state governments to stay armed, it would prevent overall domination by the Federal government.
If that was the intent, it failed...the Civil War established the preeminence of the Federal government.
In the process, the state Militia's were "taken over" by the Federal government...and the concept of "free state" (as in one of the 50 states being free from overarching control) is destroyed in a manner the framers tried to avoid.
Because of that, I now would love to see an actual legal arguement involving "rights transfer"...that is, that while the framers put in the 2nd amendment to prevent the tight control of state citizenry...it failed. The intent is not followed. The right of a "free state" (one of the 50 states, that is) to bear arms should now be "transferred" (probably a bad legal term in this discussion, but I am not a lawyer) to the individual to preserve the intent of the Constitution.
After all, if there is an implied right to privacy in the Consititution (according to the Supreme Court) there darn well should be an implied individual right to a firearm once state militias lost any semblance of independence. The second amenment is NOT there to preserve a right for the Federal government...and the right it DID preserve for state government has been destroyed...
So, if the "right" is destroyed by the current government organizational model, where does the "right" go? Is it gone, or does it "move"...?
Anti gun forces would argue the right is destroyed. That's a foolish arguement, as it bodes poorly for our other rights, and sets a precedent that an organizational change in government structure that inadvertently destroys rights is "ok"...
I would submit that the right should not be considered destroyed...that it must live on, and just as our government has changed, so must the right change, by transferring ownership to the individual.
I wonder if that would make a good supreme court arguement...Judges need a legal framework to pass such law...I would hope this is it...that the right to bear arms as evisioned has been destroyed by Federal control of state militias, and therefore it should extend to the citizenry of the US.