What if the second amendment is found not to be an individual right?

Fearless,

Yes - you are alone (I think ). The people, which make up the militia, are meant to be armed, both for their own defense, and for defense of liberty, to execute the laws, to suppress insurrections, and to protect from invasion. In order to do so effectively, they must be well-regulated (trained) and organized - otherwise there is a greater need for a standing army. The Standing Army is the bane of liberty, not an armed people well organized and well trained. Tyrants always usurped power by building an Army on the ruins of the militia.

The problem with allowing the government to actually arm the militia of the several states is they can just as effectively DISarm us.

fearless leader

This is an interesting location to browse for a look see at what the "founding fathers" thought and expressed.

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndfqu.html

Just a reminder for those saying "They could repeal the 2nd amendment" you can't.

No constitutional amendment, as an amendment , can be repealed, full stop end of story.

The actions or authorities of an amendment CAN be repealed but only by being overidden by the implementation and ratification of a new amendment.

The classic example is the 18th amendment, enacting Prohibition which was overriden by the 21st amendment. The 18th is still part of the Constitution.

The 18th is a useful case as it is the only one to be repealed and is a perfect example of what happens when politicians screw around with the Constitution.

Social policy was pushed by the 18th amendment and led directly to the explosion in organised crime we are still suffering from today.

It's a good object lesson to wave in the face of politicians if they want to start monkeying around with the Consitution.

Jim March: Well, the gays got a decision they didn't like out of the USSC some time back. 13 years and a lot of hard work, they made it back to the USSC and got the previous decision overturned.

Click to expand...

Actually, this is a good analogy. We have had this shoved in our faces for years in movies, TV and in our schools. All in a positive light, all with the “if you don’t accept this there is something wrong with you” message.

The RKBA and the 2nd Amendment has had the same treatment only in a negative light with the “if you like guns you must be a criminal” message attached.

What worked for them is working just as effectively against us. Granted the politicians are a big problem but we’re bucking the entertainment industry, the schools, and the apathy/ignorance of the general population as well. We have yet a long, hard row to hoe.

No constitutional amendment, as an amendment , can be repealed, full stop end of story.

The actions or authorities of an amendment CAN be repealed but only by being overidden by the implementation and ratification of a new amendment.

The classic example is the 18th amendment, enacting Prohibition which was overriden by the 21st amendment. The 18th is still part of the Constitution.

Click to expand...

That's not actually true. The literal text of Amendment XXI reads:

Section 1.
The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Amendment XVIII was, in fact, repealed. There can be no other meaning assigned to the text of Amendment XXI. The only reason it still exists in the text of the Constitution as generally presented is for historical purposes and context.

The only reason it still exists in the text of the Constitution as generally presented is for historical purposes and context.

Click to expand...

And so as not to mess up the numbering.

I'm not sure that I see why they had to create the 21st Amendment, as opposed to just amending the 18th and replacing its text with what the 21st says:

"The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States, for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited."

I suppose it goes along with the idea of tacking on amendments and leaving the original Constitution unmodified, as opposed to modifying the original text.

No constitutional amendment, as an amendment , can be repealed, full stop end of story.

The actions or authorities of an amendment CAN be repealed but only by being overidden by the implementation and ratification of a new amendment.

Click to expand...

This is why none can be played with, or tampered with later. The law makers have to make a new one up to handle the one being repealled.
This is in the rules of the constitution.

Similar to the law about being born in the US to qualify you to be a President,
Arnie would like to play with that one a little I figure It takes years for the laws to come up and then to be in effect it is even longer. If they started to change the law for Arnie he would be to old to run

Actually Harley, the whole issue of having to be a born USA citizen to become President has a nasty little constitutional time bomb in it.....

The 25th Amendment says if the Prez dies or becomes incapacitated, the Vice Prez IS the Prez.

The problem is the VP is not an elected official (except in the bizarre world of the Electoral College) and doesn't necessarily even have to be human, never mind a born US citizen.

Oh, you did remember you actually don't get to vote for President.....You get to vote and then the Electoral College makes their mind up to accept or reject your decision as they feel fit.

So, a COMPLETELY hypothetical situation could be where Hillary takes on Arnie as VP. One day after taking office, Hill is accidentally crushed to death by Arnies weight lifting equipment. Arnie is now Prez and can only be removed by impeachment of which not being a citizen OR EVEN HUMAN (We know he's still T1) are insufficient grounds.

And I quote

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors

If they try to say being a non born citizen is grounds for removal then cause against this could be held under both the 14th and 15th amendments.

It would get sorted out eventually but ooooooooh the fun that would occur..........

Amper: Actually, this is a good analogy. We have had this shoved in our faces for years in movies, TV and in our schools. All in a positive light, all with the “if you don’t accept this there is something wrong with you” message.

The RKBA and the 2nd Amendment has had the same treatment only in a negative light with the “if you like guns you must be a criminal” message attached.

What worked for them is working just as effectively against us. Granted the politicians are a big problem but we’re bucking the entertainment industry, the schools, and the apathy/ignorance of the general population as well. We have yet a long, hard row to hoe.

Click to expand...

While thats true, we have gotten CHL's (or your states equivalent) and the AWB is no more. Progress has been made.

The people shall then be fully within their right to "right" the government.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
--Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764).

Actually Harley, the whole issue of having to be a born USA citizen to become President has a nasty little constitutional time bomb in it.....

The 25th Amendment says if the Prez dies or becomes incapacitated, the Vice Prez IS the Prez.

The problem is the VP is not an elected official (except in the bizarre world of the Electoral College) and doesn't necessarily even have to be human, never mind a born US citizen.

Oh, you did remember you actually don't get to vote for President.....You get to vote and then the Electoral College makes their mind up to accept or reject your decision as they feel fit.

So, a COMPLETELY hypothetical situation could be where Hillary takes on Arnie as VP. One day after taking office, Hill is accidentally crushed to death by Arnies weight lifting equipment. Arnie is now Prez and can only be removed by impeachment of which not being a citizen OR EVEN HUMAN (We know he's still T1) are insufficient grounds.

Click to expand...

The Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires the vice president to meet the same eligibility requirements as the president. That is, the vice president must be at least 35 years of age, a natural born citizen, and a resident of the U.S. for 14 years.

Cold_B: While thats true, we have gotten CHL's (or your states equivalent) and the AWB is no more. Progress has been made.

Click to expand...

Very true. We are actually seeing some positive MSM articles regarding people defending themselves with guns.

If they do, I know where i'm moving.

It has already been found by some to not be an individual right. The only problem is that there are the rest of us that understand that it is, ebb and tide. As long as there is one side to the opinion there will be and equal and opposite opinion. To win, break Newton's law of relativity in politics and do not compromise on your beliefs.


Oh yeah, and push back......harder, much, much harder.

But instead is found to be a protection for state militia's?

Click to expand...

If it is found that way, it will also be found that the 2nd Amendment is a self-reinforcing right.

I know you're asking "what if", but I can't help answer "it can't".

The Constitution never refers to “state militias” per se. It refers to “the militia” broadly, and grants states power to appoint officers and responsibility to train, but in no way are “state militias” recognized. (The Constitution _does_ refer to states having standing armies - and forbids them.)

Under enumerated powers, Congress has (replacing the aforementioned Militia Act of 1792, which still is relevant as indicating what the authors of the 2nd Amendment had in mind) declared that ALL able-bodied male citizens aged 17-45 _are_, declared unilaterally, members of the federal “militia” (others are also included, but that is a digression). Nothing about being “active”, nothing indicating a “state” subset, no other limiting or qualifying factor. Reinforcing this, Congress has implemented the Selective Service System, which enrolls exactly such individuals formally. Further reinforcing this, Congress authorized and maintains the DCM/CMP program, providing basic arms and training to any adult citizen.

Therefore, I submit, this “active participation in a state militia” notion is FLAT WRONG, totally unsupported in constitutional law.

The 2nd Amendment guarantees a general right for all (stupidly obvious exceptions legally excluded) to keep and bear arms.
The DCM/CMP program provides Congressionally-supported means for any adult citizen to obtain and train in arms.
The Selective Service System identifies those who are most reasonably expected to serve this country should pressing need arise.
Thus, the preamble “a well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” is fulfilled in the broadest terms possible - and anyone acting to narrow that serves only to inhibit the security of our nation and every subset thereof.

Some may object that "a well-regulated militia is hardly an unorganized rabble where the members' last known address was in high school and the most basic training is optional". Well - tough. Congress decided who is formally in the militia, has organized them as much as they see fit, and provide training as they want - and if someone doesn't like that, they're free to vote for someone who will do more, or run for office themselves.

2Nd Amendment

Hey guys I'm new. Even if the 2nd Amedment is lost. Most States have their
own 2nd Amendements. Last I knew States were Soverin. That's when we
just say no.
Does make you wonder how this would all turn out. 80 million gun owners in the U.S. If only the same 3% said no like our fore fathers did, that is still
2.5 million gun owners that would not give. That may be a force to be reconed with.

"Recon" was much smaller "% wise" then that in the Marine Corps and they were/are definitly a force.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Marine_Corps_Force_Reconnaissance

ctd,

The Constitution does indeed refer explicitly to State militias - to THE Militia - "the Militia of the Several States" - THE only one that existed before the Constitution, and the same one that is deemed necessary in the 2nd - the one that is required - i.e. the one that is to be permanent.

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to..." ; "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia..." ; "Section 2. 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

Click to expand...

Every time "militia" is used in the constitution it refers to the same institution - and what that institution is was well established - they were in existence for 150 yrs in the colonies. They, along with "the States", and "the people", existed before the United States, before the constitution, before Congress. THAT is 'The Militia' the Constitution refers to. Now (after 1791) THE same militia of the several states were legally necessary - and also must be well-regulated, and of course well-armed.

In the hopes of making it/them more effective, the constitution gave Congress certain powers only regarding THAT militia - not some new entity they would get to create or re-create in their image, and not a "federal" entity either. (they could raise Armies and provide a Navy though).

The Militia Act of 1792 DEFINETLY re-inforces the "STATE militia" notion explicitly and often:

"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, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside," ; "That within one year after the passing of the Act, the militia of the respective states shall be arranged ..."; "..in such manner as the legislature of the respective States shall direct." ; "That there shall be an adjutant general appointed in each state, whose duty it shall be to distribute all orders for the Commander in Chief of the State to the several corps; to attend all publick reviews, when the Commander in Chief of the State shall review the militia".

Click to expand...

The Act also confirmed many of the other aspects of the Militias as they existed already.

Congress met their obligation by providing how it - THE existing militia - was to be called forth (sec 2), how it was to be armed (I - the people themselves), how it was to be organized (IV - "formed"), and how it was to be disciplined (VII - Van Stuben's Blue Book). The authority for training the State Militias (i.e. how "active" they were) - was left to the states - "It shall be the duty of the Commanding Officer as every muster, whether by battalion, regiment, or single company, to cause the militia to be exercised and trained..."

"What if the second amendment is found not to be an individual right?"

Then the Supreme Court of the United States of America will be WRONG.

It can be argued that since '68 [GCA, Morton Grove decision, etc.] the second has been held a "collective" right. Otherwise all the gun bans, registration schemes, FOID/FID/LTC/Safety Check requirements, etc. would have been challenged and held as unconstitutional. Thay have not previously been challenged due to the general ackowledgment of the "Collective Rights" theory.

Heller is the not the beginning of the end, nor the end of the end of changing that viewpoint. We've had 15-20 years on slowly increasing gains in 2A scholarship and legisation to get us to this point. We've also been lucky in that USSC as currently made-up gives us a pretty good chance of getting the correct ruling. (Think what our chances would be if Sandra Day O'Conner was still on the bench.)

Heller can be the tipping point that accelerates the dismantling of Gun Control/registration schemes and gets us closer to what the Founding Fathers envisioned.

Here's what I predict if "we" win Heller :
Gun Control/Restrictions/Bans/Registration laws in places like Chicago, NYC, etc. will get tossed out pretty quick. There will be new laws, but will have to pass constitutional (as in whatever the USSC says in Heller) muster .

We'll still have the BATFE, NICS, virtually unchanged.

922(o) [or is it (g), I disremember] stands a pretty good chance of going bye-bye. Which means that in states that currently have FA bans/restrictions those will go bye-bye also. There will be much wailing and nashing of teeth, when this case/legislation comes up.

The FA community needs to get organized and be prepared to counter the Brady's, et al. You don't want Billy Bob Redneck- head of the "I've got Three Toofus and Double Decker Tinfoil Hat Milita " as your spokesman because that's who the MSM will look for to put on the air to scare Mr and Mrs Middle America, that it's waaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyy to dangerous to let people have machine guns. "I mean look at this guy, he rapes kittens and eats puppies, and now the EVIL NRA [tm] wants to let him own machine guns ."

We have the NFA owners of America, great bunch saw them at knob creek, the need PR experience though, GOA will help with (it is 922(o)) this, as I have said before the NRA will not stand up for FA owners unless a 2/3 voting majority says they should. There is going to be one you know what of a PR fight for FA's. We might have to have a new thread for that.

I wonder if the government printed up some extra money and said to all gun owners, you can have no more than 3 in your house hold, we will buy the rest back at a fair price.

Click to expand...

That is not capitalism as I understand it. No way!

GOA will help with (it is 922(o)) this, as I have said before the NRA will not stand up for FA owners unless a 2/3 voting majority says they should.

Click to expand...

Actually, the NRA was one of the first organizations to challenge 922(o) back around 1992. Search the Legal section and you should be able to find the name of the case.

Lets not forget that we have the NRA to thank for 922(o).