What to say to people who say "SA is for well organized militias only?"

[.45&TKD]

I would say that the Cinstitution needs updated. Although I like to carry my pistols, let's face it....times are different than 1776, as is the definition and meaning of militia. They guys 230 years ago put together a heckuva a writing, but they obviously could not see the times we are in now.

You must be new here and the product of public education. Stick around and learn something, no offense intended.

 

[BerettaNut92]

That's like saying the right to free speech only applies to the press.

 

[Test1968]

I found this article a while back, but I forgot to get the Author name, etc.
If anyone knows it, please feel free to post it.



The meaning of Militia
The Supreme Court has also answered the questions that arise regarding the meaning of some of the words in the 2nd Amendment. The word militia, which has been viewed to mean the National Guard by some Federal District Courts and to mean individual people by others, was defined in The United States versus Miller case. The Supreme Court stated the following:
The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. . . . Ordinarily 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.

In actuality the word Militia does not mean the National Guard, as several Federal District Courts have ruled, but the citizens of the United States. To argue or rule otherwise would constitute failure to uphold the law and the authority given the Supreme Court by the Constitution and the citizens of the United States.

The meaning of people Another word that has caused confusion in the 2nd Amendment is “peopleâ€. Even though in the previous case the Supreme Court stated that the people had a right to bear arms, there is a question as to who these “people†are. It seems that there are those who say a 1939 ruling on this subject does not take into account recent developments on the issue. This shows a high level of bias regarding this ruling. Do these same people believe that Roe vs. Wade is outdated? What about the case of Brown vs. the Board of Education? To suggest that the Court should revisit its ruling in U.S. vs. Miller on the basis of it being outdated is to imply a term limit to the rulings of the nation’s highest court. The fact is there are no term limits on cases. In order to revisit a ruling regarding a particular issue a new case must be brought to the court for review. Then the Court can review previous rulings as well as form an “updated†opinion.

People who have this view may be interested to know that the Supreme Court has recently ruled on a case regarding the individual rights view of the 2nd Amendment. In the case of the United States vs. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990) the Court ruled:
[T]he people’ seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained and established by ‘the People of the United States.’ The Second Amendment protects ‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,’ and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to ‘the people.’ While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that ‘the people’ protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of people who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.

Just as the 1st Amendment is an individual right the 2nd Amendment is also. The meaning of the word people doesn’t change in the Constitution. The Constitution must be interpreted in a way that uses the same meaning for the same word, even if the words are in different sentences. To do otherwise would cause confusion in an extreme way. Just as President Clinton argued over the meaning of the word is, we could all argue over the meaning of any word. However, once a meaning is set forth by a court we must uphold that meaning even though we may disagree with it.

After reviewing the case mentioned and those mentioned above, the Supreme Court has made it clear that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right of the people to own firearms. Many people and even some judges still have opinions to the contrary. These opinions however, must be based on a distorted analysis, not the law or the facts. The facts in this debate over the 2nd Amendment have not and will not change. They have been reviewed and analyzed time and time again. There will always be those who prefer their emotional conclusions to the facts supported by trial and law. Under the First Amendment people are entitled to their own opinion. These people, however, need be careful with the actions they take regarding their opinions, lest it be construed that they knowingly and willfully fail to uphold the law.

REFERENCES

City of Kennesaw, Georgia. (1998). Crime Statistics Report 1982-1998. Retrieved
March 4, 2003 from http://www.kennesaw.ga.us.
Constitution of the United States of America
Federal Bureau of Investigation. (1995-2001) Uniform Crime Reports. Washington, D.C.:
United States Government Printing Office.
Fifth District Court of Appeals. (2001). The United States versus Emerson. Washington,
D.C.: United States Government Printing Office.
Fourth District Court of Appeals (1995). Love versus Pepersack. Washington, D.C.:
United States Government Printing Office.
Lott, J. R. (2000). More guns, less crime: Understanding crime and gun-control laws (2nd
ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Ninth District Court of Appeals (1996). Hickman versus. Block. Washington, D.C.:
United States Government Printing Office.
Supreme Court of the United States. (1939). The United States versus Miller.
Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office.
Supreme Court of the United States. (1990). United States versus Verdugo-Urquidez.
Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office.
Seventh District Court of Appeals (1999). Gillespie versus The city of Indianapolis.
Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office.
Sixth District Court of Appeals (1976). The United States versus Warin. Washington,
D.C.: United States Government Printing Office.
Tribe, Laurence H. (2000). American constitutional law. N.Y. : Foundation Press

 

[bogie]

Last I looked, the current "organized militia" or National Guard/Reserves, had not been formed at the time of the writing of the constitition and bill of rights. Hence, it did not refer to it.

 

[Havegunjoe]

Are the other amendments individual or collective rights?

Do only well organized churches have freedom of religion? Do only newspapers have freedom of speech? Would a government that just got through fighting it's government allow only the government to have firearms to easily enslave the people? I don't think so!

Because we need a well regulated Militia from time to time, even to protect us from our own government, the people, each of us individually, have a right to be armed.