That does not change historical fact.
Firing Back at Jim Crow - Editorial by the Wall Street Journal
- Thread starter HighRoadRover
- Start date
- Status
AlexanderA
Member
You said that "Contemporary writings tell us that the subject of 'militia' was incidental to the rKBA."
That in itself is a controversial statement. There's a historical school of thought that the militia was in fact central to the 2nd Amendment.
You are taking the same position that Scalia took, in Heller. (His ultimate goal was not objective truth, but bringing Justice Kennedy on board for the final decision.) My point, in contrast, is that the Scalia position doesn't help us in the long run (for the reasons that I cited). If the RKBA is totally divorced from the militia, that gives the green light to AWBs. Such a RKBA could be construed to apply only to handguns in the home. (In other words, only to individual self defense, which wouldn't include military-looking things like AWs.)
The key thing to remember is that the "2nd Amendment militia" is not the National Guard. The 1791 militia basically included everyone.
AJC1
Member
It has been reported time and again in the last year that black females are taking the market by storm... guess they didn't care about that authors opinion... an armed citizen is a free citizen.
The writings exist--that is incontrovertible.
That doesn't make any sense at all.
Carl N. Brown
Member
About twenty states have active state defensive forces separate from the National Guard, that report to the Governor of the state, like the State Guard in Tennessee and the State Militia in New York.
Several states have reactivated or considered reactivation or forming a state defense force following recent (past 30 years) call ups federalizing state National Guards and deploying them overseas as federal military, leaving state governors with no emergency forces.
Several states have reactivated or considered reactivation or forming a state defense force following recent (past 30 years) call ups federalizing state National Guards and deploying them overseas as federal military, leaving state governors with no emergency forces.
Carl N. Brown
Member
Heller does not say the 2A is "totally divorced from the militia clause."
Summary of the decision.
Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation 2 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER Syllabus of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.
[BTW Cruikshank erroneously claimed that the constitution and amendments only protected the rights of the people from infringement by the federal government and was not a defense against infringement by the state of Louisiana or by the Ku Klux Klan. Thus, since Cruikshank and his band of racists were not the Congress, the right to bear arms, right to vote, right to live of the victims of the Colfax County Courthouse Massacre were not protected by the post-Civil War Civil Rights Act and Cruikshank was freed. Cruikshank decision was rendered moot by the decisions of Guest and Price upholding the 1964 Civil Rights Act.]
Summary of the decision.
Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation 2 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER Syllabus of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.
[BTW Cruikshank erroneously claimed that the constitution and amendments only protected the rights of the people from infringement by the federal government and was not a defense against infringement by the state of Louisiana or by the Ku Klux Klan. Thus, since Cruikshank and his band of racists were not the Congress, the right to bear arms, right to vote, right to live of the victims of the Colfax County Courthouse Massacre were not protected by the post-Civil War Civil Rights Act and Cruikshank was freed. Cruikshank decision was rendered moot by the decisions of Guest and Price upholding the 1964 Civil Rights Act.]
AlexanderA
Member
Yes, Virginia has the State Defense Force. https://vdf.virginia.gov/ But such organizations aren't relevant to the discussion, because they require voluntary enrollment (self-selection). To qualify as the "2nd Amendment militia" membership must be universal, as envisioned in 1791. (Besides that, the VDF is basically unarmed.)
AlexanderA
Member
Scalia's word salad, in effect, nullifies the militia clause. No amount of sophistry can get around that.
The Heller case, as it stands, supports the upholding of AWBs. That's why the antigunners are so fond of citing it.
westernrover
Member
- Joined
- May 4, 2018
- Messages
- 1,613
It must be understood that the 2nd Amendment and indeed the whole Constitution of the United States are based on "Natural Law," and that the notion that is was crafted by and for men of property and wealth has long served as justification to do away with it in favor of some kind of socialism -- most popularly an evolutionary, gradualist socialism where nevertheless the government's role is to be the Great Provider for the people, to provide for their welfare and to redistribute wealth to effect equality. The 2nd Amendment is in danger so long as the US remains departed from the principles of Natural Law upon which it is based. The fact that black men were able to help themselves to their own defense or the protection of their life, liberty and property is not a compelling justification to those who think it is the government that must provide security as well as every other need and that any effort by an individual to circumvent this proper order ought to be regarded as unlawful sedition. That's why when anyone uses a gun to end another's murderous rampage, it's never acceptable, unless perhaps they were former or off-duty law enforcement or military or at least a veteran.
We often lament the encroachments on the 2nd Amendment that began in the 20th century, especially the NFA ('34) and GCA ('68), and so many bans, limits, and restrictions since. But we must go back to the latter part of the 19th century to see where the groundwork was laid for these things. Certainly, it was at least marked by the departure of Grover Cleveland, the last Democrat to maintain any pretense of Jefferson or Jackson's strict construction. From at least that time, reformism and progressivism dominated both political parties in the US, and the 2nd Amendment has been at dire risk. Before these changes were evident in candidates and politics, they were engendered by thought leaders and opinion makers earlier in the 19th century, who in effect overthrew the principles of natural law. The 2nd Amendment won't be safe again until the politicians that promise benefits are dismissed and those are elected whose promises are to hold government to the restrictions that the people have put on it.
We often lament the encroachments on the 2nd Amendment that began in the 20th century, especially the NFA ('34) and GCA ('68), and so many bans, limits, and restrictions since. But we must go back to the latter part of the 19th century to see where the groundwork was laid for these things. Certainly, it was at least marked by the departure of Grover Cleveland, the last Democrat to maintain any pretense of Jefferson or Jackson's strict construction. From at least that time, reformism and progressivism dominated both political parties in the US, and the 2nd Amendment has been at dire risk. Before these changes were evident in candidates and politics, they were engendered by thought leaders and opinion makers earlier in the 19th century, who in effect overthrew the principles of natural law. The 2nd Amendment won't be safe again until the politicians that promise benefits are dismissed and those are elected whose promises are to hold government to the restrictions that the people have put on it.
So, that is a no, you are unable to provide any historical or factual evidence support to your statement.
Last edited:
westernrover
Member
- Joined
- May 4, 2018
- Messages
- 1,613
We would have to believe that the French and Spanish were never a concern which hardly seems plausible. More likely, the notion of Southern history revolving around slavery is a page from CRT.
theotherwaldo
Member
You don't own anything that you can't defend, including yourself... .
Despite the OP's request, this appears to have veered off the gun-related highway and into the weeds of politics.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
