Is the second amendment about the states being able to arm the militia?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Now I see

But why did you spell please all wierd like that


Spellcheck it does a poster good

Did I mean poster or a poster
 
Well thats all cute what English professors thing of the 2A and the language around it.

I think these same historical and quaint scholars would say that Eminent Domain was never intended to be used for Mall of America either, but it is happening.

What DOES matter are rulings by the court, and judgements of the highest prosecutors in the land.

What few court rulings exist on the subject always rule that 2A is an individual right, and the AG's office interprets it that way as well.

I suspect if this ever gets before the Supremes (which I VERY much doubt will
ever happen) those folks will not be using English professors to interpret
the Constitution either.

Although the language may be obscure to us today, there is no doubt that the Second Amendment confirms an individual right.
 
Since the Preamble to the BOR sez the purpose of the BOR is to prevent abuse of power by the State, somebody's gonna have to explain to me how anything in the BOR can be both a restraint on the State and a restraint on a citizen.

It seems to me that it's rather hard to prevent abuse of power by the State when armed with no more than a loud scream.

The writers of the BOR didn't play hopscotch with word meanings. They were consistent in usage. "The people" wouldn't be individuals in one amendment and collectives in another. And, we have the 1992 SCOTUS decision in Urriquez/Verdugo stating that "the people" means individuals.

Note that in the Anti-Federalist papers that those who proposed the BOR stated that the rights under the Second Amendment were not unlimited. They did not expect the RKBA to extend to "those of unsound mind or ill repute". "Unsound mind" is fairly obvious. I take "ill repute" to apply to those whom we today call felons.


Art
 
Huh?

I'll try again: To prevent abusing the people and ignoring the Constitution by the central government, aka "State". Or, I guess, abuse of the powers given Government by the Constitution.

Easiest to say that the BOR is a case of, "Hey, Gummint, thou shalt not poop on the people!"

The Second Amendment is what keeps the deal from being the Nine Privileges. You can't have a Right without the means to protect and keep it.

Art
 
In the post somebody quotes from Patrick Henry who says that the states should have the right to arm the militia as well as the Federal Government.

Partial quotations can lead to interesting conclusions.

Take this quotation from Federalist 29, for example:
Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped
OK, so is that an aim of the Federal government, or an aim of the State government?

Trick question. The answer, if you read the rest of Federalist 29, is neither. He meant to make sure the militia bought and maintained their own guns.

Here's the quote in a fuller context:
were I to deliver my sentiments to a member of the federal legislature from this State on the subject of a militia establishment, I should hold to him, in substance, the following discourse:

``The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.

``But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.''
He meant to have weapons checks, but not the kind in New Orleans. He meant to assemble everyone (yes, that means you) to see that they had guns in working order! He meant to do it so that, if needed, the citizens could kill federal govt soldiers or foreign invaders.
 
What few court rulings exist on the subject always rule that 2A is an individual right, and the AG's office interprets it that way as well.

Can you name any cases in which an appellate court struck down a gun control law based on Second Amendment jurisprudence?
 
State and federal governments don't care about militias anymore, and virtually no one wants to belong to a militia, so I wouldn't invest too much in the militia aspect to justify owning guns. I intend to continue owning guns, especially carrying one, but I guess I would look to the 9A for the right of self defense to provide a better, modern argument for the RKBA. There might be something to ensuring against tyrannical governments, but no court or anyone in government I know of will go anywhere near that argument seriously. The 2A doesn't actually say that, so it is a disputable claim anyway.

Actually, what I really would rather do is have militia training be mandatory for all able bodied people of age. That takes care of safety and marksmanship concerns and legitimizes militias. It also provides at least the seeds of organization should a militia call actually be necessary.
 
It's not really a disputable claim, and your idea has already been though of.

Federalist 29:
...were I to deliver my sentiments to a member of the federal legislature from this State on the subject of a militia establishment, I should hold to him, in substance, the following discourse:

``The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.

``But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.''
 
Neither courts nor legislatures are bound by Federalist 29 or any other historical, ancillary document. There is nothing to suggest that Courts will hear a case pleading RKBA on 2A grounds or flirting with the 14A, so what are you implying here? To me it's a dispute over whether the 2A means more than it says or over the implications of the militia preamble. Both the 2A and 14A are so weak that I prefer not to base my claim of a right to own and bear guns on those alone.
 
Last edited:
The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it.
Sounds a lot like the National Guard.
 
There is nothing to suggest that Courts will hear a case pleading RKBA on 2A grounds or flirting with the 14A, so what are you implying here? To me it's a dispute over whether the 2A means more than it says or over the implications of the militia preamble.
I'm saying that the second was written to ensure that the people always had an answer to this:
There might be something to ensuring against tyrannical governments, but no court or anyone in government I know of will go anywhere near that argument seriously. The 2A doesn't actually say that, so it is a disputable claim anyway.
No one in government will go near that, but it was meant to go near them, if necessary, overriding any dispute by force.

It's quite clear that even the big govt folks back then wrote the second so that the people would always be able to overwhelm any standing Federal army by force. Yes, they meant by organizing into an opposing force, complete with cannons. No one means that now, but that's what they meant.
 
No one means that now, but that's what they meant.

If no one abides by that meaning, making the 2A irrelevant, should the 2A be repealed? It seems to me that ignoring the 2A makes a mockery of the entire Constitution. Since I am not allowed to own military grade weapons in any practical terms, I need to look elsewhere to support my claim to the right of self defense with a gun.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top