2nd Amnd. question?

[Art Eatman]

The Bill of Rights has a Preamble. Did y'all know that? It tells the purpose of the first ten amendments. Basically, it says the reason for the BOR is to prevent the abuse of power by the State.

The BOR is a set of restrictions against the central government.

So: How can a restriction on the behavior of the state ("...shall not be infringed.") be applicable to the people at large, to individuals wandering about the streets? "You can't have it both ways." is an ancient saying...

Separately, the rights under the Second Amendment are not unlimited. Its proponents, as shown in the Anti-Federalist Papers, stated the belief that the right to keep and bear arms would be denied to those of unsound mind or of "ill repute". (I take "ill repute" to mean what we today call felons.)

IIRC, Urriquez/Verdugo v. US (1992) spoke to "people" as individuals.

Art

 

[grampster]

Some might argue that if the "miltia" is made up of 17 to 45 year old's, then those of us over 45 should not be armed. Of course, my response to that is that "the people" have no such age construct. Any armed resistance by a well regulated miltitia to the loss of freedom by a free state would also need supplies, and if the people's right to kaba shall not be infringed, the implication is fairly clear.

 

[beerslurpy]

The well-regulated militia is only the reason for the right being specifically enumerated. It would exist without being enumerated and it doesnt apply to only those able to serve in the milita.

 

[El Tejon]

grampster, there's a case from the Supreme Court of Joejuh that deals with that exact issue. Nunn v. Georgia, 1846. I'll get the cite when I go home tonight for you.

The Georgia Supreme Court explains that the militia springs forth from the people as a whole. In order to have a well-trained militia, it is necessary that the very young be exposed to shooting and fighting. As well, it is necessary that the elders have firearms as they must teach the young.

 

[RealGun]

How does one reply to liberals who read into this that the right to bear arms is suppose to be regulated and only pertains to a regulated militia or a paramilitary organization.

First of all, liberals don't want to be persuaded, so take your best shot and move on.

When I look at the grammar of the 2A and place it in context, I think mention of militia simply expresses why the federal government would have a reason to cite keeping and bearing arms in the BoR. It doesn't grant that right but merely guarantees that the right will not be infringed, i.e. will be protected (in theory) from liberal nonsense. Later law made that applicable to the States, but so far compliance has been voluntary, greatly confusing the issue. Federal infringement by way of the commerce clause has also made it very confusing. Convenient rulings to keep guns away from blacks has also added confusion. Most recently, concerns for criminals and terrorists, whether genuine or not, make no clear distinction between honest citizens and the bad guys. Liberals are under the impression that gun ownership is subject to the will of the majority. It may be, but only in the form of a constitutional amendment or a bad law by bad lawmakers.

Liberals are wrong, but they don't want to hear that and won't accept it.

 

[bjbarron]

During the constitutional ratification process, there were several suggestions about re-wording 2A. This was a suggestion that came from the Pennsy delegation, I believe. Every state had it's own interpretation, and most of them incorporated their ideas eventually in their own state constitutions.

That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil powers.

Apparently there was concern over the language even back then. This one seems even fuzzier than the existing 2A.

One other thing. The present SCOTUS is not the place you want to bring a 2A case. You would see a 5/4 ruling supporting the gun-grabbers, if not a complete ban. Well regulated means well cared-for and well working...like the old Regulator Clocks.

 

[RealGun]

I believe the 2A as it reads also guarantees the continuing legality of militias, as long as they are "well regulated". Whether or not they exist as intended or have been completely supplanted would be an interesting discussion.

If the federal government had no remaining interest in citizen militias, and States subscribed to a constitutional amendment, the right to keep and bear arms could have little if any explicit protection. Thus I wouldn't say that militias have nothing to do with RKBA. Rights may exist without mention in the BoR, but they wouldn't be guaranteed against infringement.

Legitimate and disciplined citizen militia activity would help a great deal as a supporting argument for the ongoing existence of the 2A. Individuals beating their chests (molon labes) will not do it.

 

[Talon]

I'm surprised that GeekWithA.45 hasn't chimed in with this yet, but here's something of interest for anyone who cares about their rights.

Two documents that uphold our RKBA as an individual right.

1982 Senate Subcommittee Report on the RKBA

and

A 2004 DoJ Memo upholding the individual right

For those interested, there's links to those in my "Liberty Papers." Link is in my sig. (/shameless plug)

EDIT: I see Erik F has already linked the DoJ memo. Sorry bout that.

 

[RealGun]

There is strong evidence that Senators are not aware of that document and that Orin Hatch has done little to either maintain his 25 year old position or promulgate it. DC does, after all, turn good people into decorous mush.