So I got into a talk about the 2nd with some family members.

[AlexanderA]

the language is extremely clear - what is in the language that is not to understand?

If you take a Constitutional Law course, you realize that there is plenty of accrued meaning that is not within the four corners of the document. (For example, the idea that the Supreme Court could review legislation for constitutionality was an innovation by Chief Justice Marshall.) The 2nd Amendment is no different. Trying to understand its meaning by reading the mere words is extremely naive. You have to take the entire judicial history into account.

 

[LiveLife]

Heller ... misses the point of the 2nd Amendment as written, which was both an individual AND collective right.

To me the Supreme Court's ruling on DC v Heller better clarified the Second Amendment to EXPAND the protection not just for citizen militia (armed citizens) but also for individuals not connected with the militia which resulted in Second Amendment protection for everyone. This is not a take away rather expansion of the Second Amendment.

Bill of Rights was written after the US Constitution to ensure the Constitution remained viable (And updated/improved by Amendments). Many countries like North Korea and China also have great sounding constitutions. Heck, North Korea's constitution states citizens have the right to freedom of speech, the press, assembly, demonstration (Article 67); freedom of religious belief (Article 68) and even right to relaxation (Article 71) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_North_Korea

But the enforcement behind their constitutions sucks and why the wonderful sounding rights only applies to those citizens North Korean dictator likes and why Chinese demonstrators in Hong Kong are repressed by the Chinese communist party and they are screaming for our Second Amendment.

As justice Gorsuch said, "Bill of Right is a set of promises on paper ... What makes a promise worth the words on paper is the enforcement mechanisms behind it ... Our Bill of Rights is excellent" - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...with-question-on-the-second-amendment.856201/

The 2nd Amendment is no different. Trying to understand its meaning by reading the mere words is extremely naive. You have to take the entire judicial history into account.

Absolutely.

And keep in mind that many countries have constitutions but only USA has the Bill of Rights (Specifically the Second Amendment), making us unique and why what happened in other countries regarding their gun rights is not applicable to USA.

When the Bill of Rights was being put together by the founders from various proposals submitted by the states, the Second Amendment was finalized and summarized to three distinct ideas:

• A well regulated Militia (followed by a coma)
• Being necessary to the security of a free State (followed by a coma)
• The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed (note the coma after "Arms")

Our founders had just defeated the tyranny of British monarchy and wanted to prevent future tyranny, foreign or domestic. While there exists a federal military (Army, Navy, Air Force, Space Force, Marines, Coast Guard) to defend the country against foreign enemies, states also maintain their own National Guard units along with state militias to maintain law and order against domestic enemies. Yes, as constitutional scholars noted, those comas play a significant role of separating ideas - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-second-amendment.856201/page-2#post-11375346

And when the first Congress met, it was clarified the Second Amendment also applied to protection of individuals which the Supreme Court confirmed in DC v Heller in affirming the "keep" part and Young v Hawaii going to the Supreme Court will likely affirm the "bear" part of the Second Amendment.


Here's repost from another thread discussion - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-second-amendment.856201/page-2#post-11375346

Second Amendment Scholar says Assault Weapons Ban "won't pass constitutional muster"

Since millions of hand guns and long guns are in "common use" and the Second Amendment is worded, "A well regulated militia ... , ("coma") the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" with a deliberate "coma" to differentiate right to keep and bear arms was meant for the people (After much research, intent at the time of the writing of the Constitution applied to individual rights as affirmed by Heller ruling).

The term "Assault Weapon" targets cosmetic features and these popular firearms commonly used are actually legal semi-auto firearms and ban won't pass constitutional muster. Millions of "Assault Weapons" were purchased legally and are "commonly used" with large capacity magazines and ban on firearms and magazines (modern ammunition storage devices are "Arms" as ruled by federal courts) won't pass constitutional muster.

Government's own studies found there was no appreciable reduction in violent crimes from "Assault Weapons" ban and only took guns away from law abiding citizens. Mass shootings (4 or more people killed) occur in so called "gun free zones" and may actually attract shooters to these areas because they are unprotected.


And in light of recent Texas church shooting ... "Keep" means store and "Bear" means carry.

Justice Ginsburg defined, “... natural meaning of ‘bear arms’ is to 'wear, bear, or carry ... upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose ... of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.'” - https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/concealed-carry-and-the-right-to-bear-arms

The Supreme Court explicitly included both concealed carry and open carry in its definition of “bear arms".

I believe future Supreme Court cases will further expand the Second Amendment to apply protection not just for self defense at home but self defense outside the home as well and Young v Hawaii could be the next Heller - https://michellawyers.com/young-v-hawaii/


And I anticipate several states' ban on certain modern semi-auto rifles will also be challenged in the Supreme Court with cases going through the federal courts as we speak.

For Heller 2 case in 2012, a 50 page dissent was written by a judge in disdain of court's actions essentially saying DC's ban on semi-auto rifle was unconstitutional under Heller.

This dissent was written by ... < wait for it > ... now justice Kavanaugh! - https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/inter...C748525791F004D84F9/$file/10-7036-1333156.pdf

"... the D.C. ban on semi-automatic rifles and the D.C. gun registration requirement are unconstitutional"​

 

[Tommygunn]

In my opinion we lost the capability to fulfill the intent of what the FF's were tring to leave us when automatic weapons were banned. If we ever do need to protect our country from enemy's from within or without we will always be hopelessly out gunned. If our own government were to ever go rogue, we would be facing our own armed forces in which case no amount of privately owned firearms could ever hope to prevail. It would be ideal I guess if we could all be like that guy in Col. with the immense arsenal. Oh if dreams could come true...

We can only hope that if that ever happend that the majority of service members do the right thing and resist.

While I agree that full-auto weapons should enjoy the same protections as semis, lever-action, bolt action, and flintlocks, I think many people over hype the utility of full auto. The best used is belt-fed, crew served for area denial in a battle. In that role they just cannot really be replaced by civilian-legal non-NFA weapons.

But if we ever did need to resist govt. tyranny, numbers and tactics/strategies would be paramount. Only a fool would think Civil War 2.0 would be fought like 1.0 was. Think "asymmetric warfare" and guerilla warfare.
What advantage would a rebel armed with a Winchester model 70 in .30-'06 have against govt. ninjas armed with H&K smgs?

RANGE! Don't get in close. A good scoped boltie will out range subguns.

That's only one example. Think outside the box.
Not ALL war is done with guns. There is psyops as well.

War is terrible and ought to be avoided so long as possible. But should we have no choice, we would still have a chance if we have the will.
And if we are willing to pay a horrible price.

 

[LiveLife]

We desperately need a clearly defining case to go before the Supremes and get a strict scrutiny interpretation and definitive ruling. Unfortunately, they punted on every single case to come before them so far this year.

In many ways, I am glad the SCOTUS punted those gun cases.

With Ginsburg vacancy filled, we may transition from weak 5-4 to stronger 6-3 for gun rights/2A rulings by increasing "Originalist" Supreme Court justices.

I cannot wait for justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh and possibly Barrett (I am hoping) to apply their impeccable reasoning to gun rights/2A case rulings.

 

[wiscoaster]

But if we ever did need to resist govt. tyranny, numbers and tactics/strategies would be paramount. Only a fool would think Civil War 2.0 would be fought like 1.0 was.

Also, a fight to resist tyranny may very well NOT be fought with FIREARMS. When the tyrant will be fighting with UAVs, satellites, electromagnetic and laser weapons, control of power, water, sanitary and communications, your best firearm will be useless. I like the way the framers wrote the Second Amendment to specify ARMS. They were foresighted enough to realize that defense could at some point involve some other technology than hurling projectiles with contained explosions. I think that the first line of defense against tyranny should now be to develop a method of disabling a drone by some means that cannot be pinpointed.

 

[mjsdwash]

people always forget the principle was tested several times over the next several decades. 1812, Mexican-American, Frontier, and US civil wars all involved these militias. So did Vietnam, and Afghanistan, Iraq, and we lost. In Mexico, South and Central America these militias have exceeded the authority of their own governments, ironically fueled by their government lust for unchecked power.
But the civil militia plan does work. France surrendered, Czechoslovakia surrendered, to the Germans, but the fighting didn't stop there.

Even US congressmen admit it works well enough that he may have to nuke the civilians.
So the logic is not anymore what the 2nd was for, the courts cleared that up.

Its not whether it works, history makes that clear.

What it is now, is either: Is it worth being afraid all the time to protect rights?

Or: Is it better to be a serf and go back to the feudal human livestock state of a disarmed simple life. Most people really just dream of being that spoiled old dog that lays next to a fire and sleeps all day. They'll give up anything to a government that promises that life. They don't care that its unrealistic. But they know the government says you can't have it unless you disarm.

 

[Brutuskend]

This may be an unpopular post but I have to say it. Trump scares me to my bones.
I am against just about everything he stands for except gun rights. And if I had to choose between him and my right to be armed I'm not sure what I would do. And I hope I'm not the only one who feels that way.
You can be a liberal leaning person and still have a good head on your shoulders and it saddens me to see such a divisition as we have in this country right now.

 

[AlexanderA]

To me the Supreme Court's ruling on DC v Heller better clarified the Second Amendment to EXPAND the protection not just for citizen militia (armed citizens) but also for individuals not connected with the militia which resulted in Second Amendment protection for everyone. This is not a take away rather expansion of the Second Amendment.

With all due respect, I think the Heller decision was full of muddled thinking, and in the long run will serve to RESTRICT the 2nd Amendment.

Scalia had a perfect "out" -- he could have said the 2nd Amendment applied to the militia, but that all people were, ipso facto, members of the militia (without regard to formal enrollment). That would have meant that all individuals had the right to own the standard weapons of the military, including machine guns and artillery. (But, granted, that would have been a "bridge too far" for Justice Kennedy.)

Remember that, as written, the Heller decision did no more than legalize the possession of a loaded revolver, in the home, for self defense. All that Heller did was outlaw a 100% blanket gun ban, as existed previously in the District of Columbia. Given Scalia's long list of permissible exceptions, Heller can be used (and has been used) by the antigunners to justify all sorts of infringements, including "assault weapons" bans.

 

[AlexanderA]

With Ginsburg vacancy filled, we may transition from weak 5-4 to stronger 6-3 for gun rights/2A rulings by increasing "Originalist" Supreme Court justices.

I cannot wait for justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh and possibly Barrett (I am hoping) to apply their impeccable reasoning to gun rights/2A case rulings.

Yes, but I believe that this opportunity will be short-lived. We'll have a window of less than a year to bring the proper cases. The chances are good that the Democrats will win not only the presidency, but also control of the Senate. Their first order of business will be to abolish the filibuster, and then to expand the Court to 15 members. 6 conservative Justices will be outvoted by 9 liberals.

 

[Cannibul]

If you take a Constitutional Law course, you realize that there is plenty of accrued meaning that is not within the four corners of the document. (For example, the idea that the Supreme Court could review legislation for constitutionality was an innovation by Chief Justice Marshall.) The 2nd Amendment is no different. Trying to understand its meaning by reading the mere words is extremely naive. You have to take the entire judicial history into account.

This country was never intended to be run by Judges. But it's what we've fallen into.

There are some who feel that the ONLY rights we have are those granted by those judges.

I find that thought abhorrent and unconstitutional.

 

[BreechFace]

This country was never intended to be run by Judges. But it's what we've fallen into.

There are some who feel that the ONLY rights we have are those granted by those judges.

I find that thought abhorrent and unconstitutional.

This!

 

[DrDeFab]

I just went out and got this one off of my bumper.View attachment 943997

Too bad Jefferson never said it. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/thomas-jefferson-gun-quote/

There are enough real pro-liberty quotes that it is a shame to muddy the waters with misattributions. Not picking on anyone here - you would think the makers of the bumper sticker would do the fact checking.

 

[Brutuskend]

Ouch,
Still very good to know. It Sounds like something he would have, SHOULD have said.

 

[GEM]

I watched this for a bit and it’s a touch too political and not a main focal point for General, thus closed.