Second Amendment, Militia, (comma) vs Militia

[Gunsby_Blazen]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

And

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringe.

The comma after Militia, it changes the meaning of the Second Amendment, but does it change what it means for people, really?? The people still have the right to arm themselves. At least with my understanding.

Was the amendment not written so that he people can protect themselves from the tyranny of not only invading forces but from their own government as well? So are we not entitled to military arms? I am not an anarchist in any way at all. I am a patriotic democracy loving American. I am just speaking of this in terms of philosophy.

Concerning the context of when the document was written, the states did not want the federal government encroaching their sovereignty.
This leads me to my second gripe, the states have this right to arms and not the people. If that was true why is it included with individual rights? Perhaps state national guards are unconstitutional too because of their incorporation into the federal army. Some clarification please??

Heck I don’t know I was about to go on a rant…. I am sure you guys know much more about this than I, so please enlighten me…

There is a lot more for me to go on about but I will add more later to this if this argument picks up.

Again, I apologize for my stratified post, it doesn’t flow that well, I was just kind of ranting a bit because I just got done talking with someone who thinks guns should be highly regulated....

 

[H088]

The founding fathers wouldn't put in.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

If it wasn't intended for citizens to "keep and bear arms",

Also what about "shall not be infringed" do people not get?

 

[husbandofaromanian]

If the 2nd ammendment is translated correctly, we can have any arm we want. Back then, the people had arms just as powerful as the governments (cannons). So interpreted correctly we can all own nukes , RPG's, chemical weapons you name it.
This is why I am afraid of a win. If the supreme court interprets the 2nd correctly, the government will have no choice but to add a new ammendment canceling the 2nd (such as prohibition).
I just don't see how they can make a ruling that hits middle ground without violating the 2nd ammendment.

 

[riverdog]

. . .I just don't see how they can make a ruling that hits middle ground without violating the 2nd amendment.

Which is why they're on the Supreme Court and we're not. They don't have to hit middle ground, all they need to do is rule narrowly, affirm RKBA and direct DC to regulate but not ban. The regulate part is where cannon's et al are removed from our shopping lists. In this process, the Miller ruling will take a hit.

 

[husbandofaromanian]

www.wildimports.com

Well, I don't know what happened to them so:

www.cannon-mania.com

 

[1KPerDay]

(Because) a well-regulated militia [is] necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people [all the people, in other words, the militia] to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

That's how I read it and how they intended it, IMO.

 

[RoostRider]

You don't know how many times I have wondered this same thing.... thanks for the good post....

 

[Gunsby_Blazen]

I do not see how the Legislature could amend the constitution to void one of the Bill of Rights. This is not just an amendment to the constitution, its a part of the Bill of Rights!!! Prohibiting firearms is much different than prohibiting liquor. First, there were no amendments protecting liquor in any way, which gave the opportunity to enact prohibition. Anyway, I don't see that ever happening. If the government outlaws firearms, the second amendment is there to protect us from that, it will be doing its job to protect us from tyranny. That is if the people use it for its intended use.
As for how the S Court is going to rule, i have no idea..... I assume they are going to try and maintain the status quo.

Also, the representative from Chicago land is now officially in the running for president.

 

[Art Eatman]

Most people who interpret the 2A as collective haven't read or won't read the Preamble to the Bill of Rights. Many don't even know of its existence.

It states that the purpose of the Bill of Rights is to prevent abuse of power by the State.

If such be the case, how can a restraint on government also and at the same time be a restraint upon the citizenry? That just does not compute. For the intent of the Preamble be met, all rights must be individual, throughout the BOR.

Also remember that at the time of the original writing, militia members provided their own rifles/pistols/muskets/knives/swords/etc. Cannons were mostly owned by communities or else by the wealthy--an affordability issue.

Art

 

[BrianB]

Webster didn't define WMD as arms.

If the 2nd ammendment is translated correctly, we can have any arm we want. Back then, the people had arms just as powerful as the governments (cannons). So interpreted correctly we can all own nukes , RPG's, chemical weapons you name it.

According to Webster at that time, arms were defined as anything a person could bear. That limits us to small arms, and leaves out WMD, artillery, missiles, etc.
Here's the source article link from the NRA site:

http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/InTheNews.aspx?ID=11104

 

[Gunsby_Blazen]

Thanks Art, I knew that, but it completely slipped my mind for the time being. Completely forgot about the preamble...

But Brian, inst personal protection a secondary function of the Second?? or am i misreading you?

Another issue that bothers me concerns the National Guard. The people cannot form militias today, they will probably be hunted down by the ATF. But isn't the national guard somewhat unconstitutional as they are an abstract from the federal army??

 

[ctdonath]

At the time, commas were used pretty casually. There are multiple "official, original" copies of the BoR that have varying use of commas in the 2ndA. The presence or absence of a comma written then in such a document means little.

 

[ctdonath]

If the supreme court interprets the 2nd correctly, the government will have no choice but to add a new ammendment canceling the 2nd

...which subsequently cancels the Constitution, and thus dissolves the government created thereby.

 

[Pilot]

But isn't the national guard somewhat unconstitutional as they are an abstract from the federal army??

The National Guard and the Reserves are part of the Federal Government's Army. They are not true militias.

 

[308win]

I doubt that the common citizen, regardless of how broad the Supreme Court might decide Heller, ever has an opportunity to own nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. The government regulates production of these devices and will continue to do so. Illegal manufacture and thus ownership is always an option if one has the means.

 

[romma]

Also what about "shall not be infringed" do people not get?

Oh they get it. They just use the militia clause like a blanket to pull over their heads so they can hide from those "scary" guns...

 

[rainbowbob]

If you have not read J. Neil Schuman's book, "Stopping Power" - do yourselves a big favor and go to the link where you will find a FREE online version of the entire book in pdf format.

To answer your questions about the meaning of the 2nd Amendment...go to page 151 and read the chapter: "English Usage Expert Interprets the 2nd Amendment".

http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/stop0584.pdf

 

[ctdonath]

308,
The WMD red herring is largely addressed by the fact that such arms are so expensive to make/maintain/use that pretty much anyone with that kind of money would make sure they don't do anything stupid with one ... and the few with the money AND the stupidity won't be stopped by mere ink on paper ... and those with money, idiocy, and motivation will be dealt with by gov't agents who are similarly not so concerned with ink on paper.

It's not like a 6yo will find a nuke in daddy's sock drawer.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

If the 2nd ammendment is translated correctly, we can have any arm we want. Back then, the people had arms just as powerful as the governments (cannons). So interpreted correctly we can all own nukes , RPG's, chemical weapons you name it.

Actually, there is a fair amount of scholarship suggesting that "arms" were used mostly to describe personal, individually-carried weapons. For example, inventories of the time listed under "Arms" things like Muskets, Pole-axes, swords, and pistols. Under "Ordnance", things like mortars, cannon, and other heavier weaponry was listed.

People did privately own such things then (much like a very few people privately own functioning T34s and similar stuff now); but I would say that there is a fair question whether those items were intended to be protected by the Second Amendment (and if *I* think that, then it would certainly be easy enough for a Supreme Court Justice to plausibly argue that).

 

[ctdonath]

Methinks most of that scholarship is by those keen on limiting RKBA however possible.
There is NOT fair question whether "ordnance" were intended to be protected, as the whole friggin' point of the 2ndA was not about products, but about protecting freedom - that "the people" would have resources "necessary to the security of a free State". Surely the Founding Fathers would be appalled that what they wrote could be construed as allowing the government to punish someone for bringing personally-owned ordnance to a battle! That such items may be rarely owned is a matter of cost & difficulty, NOT of prohibition; if someone has the resources to own a T34, good for him and may it serve him and us well.

Remember: the principle is "that which is not explicitly forbidden is allowed", not the popularly-held reverse. The "oh, they didn't mean crew-served arms" notion is dangerous, as it implicitly gives the government the power to, with force, reserve such power to itself - which is exactly what the 2nd Amendment was designed to PREVENT.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

The comma after Militia, it changes the meaning of the Second Amendment, but does it change what it means for people, really??

What makes you think the presence or absence of the comma after "militia" changes anything? It doesn't. In the "old days," commas were used a lot more than they are now. I'm old enough and have taken enough English classes to remember the transition. The rule regarding commas used to be (and in England apparently still is), "When in doubt, put it in." The current rule in American usage is, "When in doubt, leave it out."

The rule regarding a subservient clause is that you should be able to remove it and have the sentence stand by itself. If you have the comma after "militia," the portion between the two commas becomes a subservient clause. Remove it and you have a sentence reading "A well regulated militia the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Doesn't make a lot of sense, does it?

Which means that, as numerous very rigorous grammatical deconstructions have shown, the entire prefatory clause of the 2nd Amendment is the part up to the second comma, and the body of the sentence is simply "The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

 

[Harve Curry]

And this version below, provided by someone here on THR, who was correcting my signature at the time.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Methinks most of that scholarship is by those keen on limiting RKBA however possible.

On the contrary, quite a few of them wrote briefs supporting Heller and suggesting that arms only addressed individual weapons. I know you are a pretty avid reader of that stuff ctdonath, so I'm sure you read them.

There is NOT fair question whether "ordnance" were intended to be protected, as the whole friggin' point of the 2ndA was not about products, but about protecting freedom - that "the people" would have resources "necessary to the security of a free State".

The Founders pretty clearly demonstrated they knew the difference between the words "arms" and "ordnance" in the Congressional reports and Continental Congress correspondence of the time. If they meant to include "ordnance" under the Second Amendment, why did they use the word "arms?"

About the only argument I can see to support that is that privately-owned ordnance was so rare that they didn't think it worth mentioning separately - which brings up the question of how important is protecting ordnance anyway in that circumstance?

To put it another way, other than by inference and implication - how do you show SCOTUS that what you say is true? Because we are a LONG ways from a culture that will tolerate the private ownership of ordnance based on an implied right.

 

[tube_ee]

Um... No.

I do not see how the Legislature could amend the constitution to void one of the Bill of Rights. This is not just an amendment to the constitution, its a part of the Bill of Rights!!!

It is "just an amendment to the Constitution." There is nothing in the document that says that Amendments 1-10 cannot be changed, repealed, or whatever, via the Article V process.

Even the "unamendable" equal representation clause in article V could be changed, either by an amendment that was unanimously ratified or by Constitutional Convention, and that's as close to an absolute as exists in the whole Constitution.

The Bill of Rights is not untouchable. And, no, repealing any of it's provisions would not invalidate the rest of the Constitution, except by sparking a successful revolution.

--Shannon

--Shannon

 

[Gunsby_Blazen]

It is awfully hard to amend the constitution.....
and, constitutional convention is highly unlikely, it has only occurred once.

Another thing that must be taken into consideration is that an attempt to change one Amendments of the Bill of Rights would be viewed negatively by the public as a whole. Do politicians want to risk this? It would be an error to look at this as a gun only issue.