What if the second amendment is found not to be an individual right?

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

lacoochee

Member
Joined
May 20, 2006
Messages
690
Location
San Antonio, FL
But instead is found to be a protection for state militia's?

Does that mean a state like Montana could declare all of its non-felon, mentally stable, etc. citizens to be members of the Montana Fighting Broncos Militia (MFBM) and issue those MFBM members automatic weapons and authorize them "personal" weapons of any nature without interference from the Federal Government?

Just curious, if the guys fighting to change the meaning from a People's Right to the State's Right interpretation have really thought out all of the implications if they "win"? Doesn't a decision either way provide us a legal alternate path no matter which way it's decided?
 
Does that mean a state like Montana could declare all of its non-felon, mentally stable, etc. citizens to be members of the Montana Fighting Broncos Militia (MFBM) and issue those MFBM members automatic weapons and authorize them "personal" weapons of any nature without interference from the Federal Government?
Click to expand...

Do you honestly think that would happen?
 
Do you honestly think that would happen?
Click to expand...
Been to Montana lately? Not too much of an exaggeration.

In any event, the point is, if that is what the 2A means then what are the logical implications of that interpretation? The "collectivists" really don't think that far ahead.
 
Do you honestly think that would happen?
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's what I would expect would happen here in Florida and other places once the ball started rolling. It really isn't that big a stretch, given that we already issue Concealed Weapons Licenses, just make them a little more formal, and then voila, instant Militia registry system.

There are 457,015 concealed weapons license holders in Florida, lets say for arguments sake they are all registered, voters, there are approximately 9.9 million registered voters in Florida, concealed weapons license holders alone (imagine how many disenfranchised gun owners without licenses there would be) would make up 5% of the total registered electorate. That 5% alone would be a deciding margin in a lot of our state races, that's ignoring the possibility that CWL holders (you have to be motivated to get a CWL, they don't just fall in your lap) would probably be more likely to vote than the average registered voter come election time and would likely wield a weight greater than the 5% they actual make up. This alone makes it extremely likely that our state politicians would fall all over themselves, to make this constituency happy (as they currently do).

In the end I think a lot of the anti-gun folks forget that the government (State and Federal) are made up of the People and that the People will have their way eventually.
 
The Second Amendment could be repealed tomorrow, and we would still all retain the right to keep and bear arms. The Bill of Rights doesn't give us any rights, it simply recognizes some of them.

Oh, and for the record, presently every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who are not members of the National Guard or standing armed services is a member of the militia. Look up the Militia Act of 1903 for proof. I'm willing to bet that a woman, should she be so inclined, could make a successful Fourteenth Amendment argument to have the act extend to cover women as well.
 
Montana keeps trying to pass that one piece of legislation every year to make federal firearm restrictions null and void in their state, but it has never gone anywhere. Granted it might if the SCOTUS did something as suggested here.

I just know a lot of people from a lot of less gun friendly states have come here to AZ and been in awe that they could go online, find a gun for sale locally, and just go buy it with cash in a parking lot with no waiting period and it is all completely legal. Did I mention they were not mad at that, they were excited. These are all law abiding people too. The point? A lot of people want their guns. Guns are not going anywhere anytime soon, ruling or no ruling. They can sure try to nickel and dime guns out of our hands (like the AWB), but they won't up and out become "militia only" items.
 
Thain, agreed, I am just looking at it from a legal point of view, not a human rights point of view (aka the right to defend oneself).

I am saying part of the problem we are all facing right now is that we have been living with ambiguity of interpretation as related to the second amendment since SCOTUS remanded the Miller case, as concerned withe constitutionality of the 1934 NFA, back to the circuit courts where the case died due to the death of the original complaintant and all that followed from there. Any decision at this point would actually help us, because we would no longer be dealing with the fog of war but instead we would finally be handed a clear view of the enemies true position.
 
I think we in the RKBA movement tend to rely too heavily on the US Constitution.

I would imagine that the verbiage of each of those state RKBA amendments that aren't already explicitly pro individual right, could be tweaked much more easily than changing federal law or getting the SCOTUS to rule on it. (keep in mind the antis have likely figured this out too).
 
Gee, I hope Montana recognizes an auxiliary militia for those of us in other states! :D

Since it is legal, as an example, for a police organization to allow a policeman to take a full auto weapon home (may not be very common, but it is legal), one would have to think that as a member of the Montana militia, the state could allow that also. You don't "own" the NFA weapon, the state "owns" it (i.e. no tax stamp, access to newly manufactured weapons).
 
Well, the gays got a decision they didn't like out of the USSC some time back. 13 years and a lot of hard work, they made it back to the USSC and got the previous decision overturned.

Are we as committed to our cause as they are theirs?
 
IAC,

First, Last and Always: Remember the Bill of Rights isn't a losting of government-granted anything. Its a compliation of areas wherein no government of the U.S., local, state or federal, may impinge without utmost need and only as provided by provisions delineated.

IOW, these are the 'birthrights' of all citizens and can only be bounded by such proscriptions we, as a socieity, deem neccessary for good public order. Anytime you, or anyone you're conversing with claims the 2nd Amendment is a 'collective' Right, or one ceded by government, apply that logic to the First Amendment. You won't like the result..... >MW
 
First, Last and Always: Remember the Bill of Rights isn't a losting of government-granted anything. Its a compliation of areas wherein no government of the U.S., local, state or federal, may impinge without utmost need and only as provided by provisions delineated.
Click to expand...

Not exactly. Mostly, the BOR limits the power of the federal government and the congress. (Yes, there are exceptions.) Only through "incorporation" via the privileges and immunities clause of the 14th amendment (and the equal protection and due process clauses as well) does the BOR limit the reach of the state and local governments.

The 2A hasn't been incorporated as yet. But there is a chance that they might get there when deciding Heller/Parker (assuming that they grant cert).
 
I see several different topics popping up in this thread that are really separate issues.

1. As a hypothetical, if we accept the collectivist argument then what are the consequences of that in terms of the states being able to set their own militias and firearms laws?

2. The fact that currently the only place there is an individual right in the United States is the Fifth Circuit and Washington D.C.

3. Incorporation issues.

4. The discussion that the Second Amendment isn't a right granted by the Government but an acknowledgement by the Government that it may not infringe on a pre-existing right that all of its citizens have.

It seems to me like the original poster is interested in exploring issue #1. The other issues are interesting and certainly fair game for Legal; but maybe they would be better off in a separate thread instead of having four different discussions going on in this one.
 
Very, very bad

IMO anything short of a complete overturning of DC's ban and a holding that 2A is an individual right will hasten the coming of confiscation on a national level.

For those pointing out that the respective state constitutions protect rights as well, that's true... but also subservient to the supremacy of federal law. Any state so bold as to take action like the one suggested by OP would be listening to the sound of marching feet and the tune of "come on baby light my fire" as the feds would be compelled to attempt a smiting a la Waco. ATF would scrutinize such a movement as "anti-government". There would be howls in congress about passing a law...

Eventually, the noose will tighten around the 2A's neck. within our lifetimes we would see outlawing of at least handguns in private hands.

That's always been the 'other side of the coin' in this. The court knows that no matter what they rule, there will be decades of follow on suits, legislation and suits about the subsequent (to the ruling) legislation.

Even so, I believe you will see a split ruling on the questions. I think they will rule that 2A does secure an individual right, people means the people, and I think they will at least partially smackdown DC - disassembly requirement, ban but I'm not sure about all of it...

I think rather than trying to skirt an unfavorable ruling, we should move now to impeach any justice clinging to the collective rights lie.
 
To the gays comment:

Gays have gained more acceptance in society, thus part of why they were able to win 13 years later. Our guns are not gaining any acceptance in society, and we are losing more ground everyday. We are working backwards from them, and thus it will take a heckuva lot more effort on our ends to accomplish anything today, and more so in 13 years from now.
 
Since the Congress has the power to provide for arming the Militia (of the several states), which they now define as the National Guard, and which they arm federally & with great restrictions, I don't see this helping Montana issue autos. The feds also have the power to organize the Miltia, which again they have screwed up on - with the creation of the NG, and by "organizing" the rest of we the people right into obsoleteness (there are no provisions in current law for calling forth the unorgainzed militia).

Now, if Montana takes the stance that the feds have been non-feasant in their duty to arm/organize the Militia effectively, they "should" be able to step in and take over - good luck with that!
 
Any state so bold as to take action like the one suggested by OP would be listening to the sound of marching feet and the tune of "come on baby light my fire" as the feds would be compelled to attempt a smiting a la Waco. ATF would scrutinize such a movement as "anti-government". There would be howls in congress about passing a law...
Click to expand...

Well, just for the record: MT already has a law stating that anyone lawfully possessing and carrying a gun is "licensed" per the federal law about no guns on school property. You don't even have to have a CWP.

That's pretty in-your-face right there, and we haven't been invaded yet. Perhaps that is because all the troops are busy in Iraqistan (hmmm, I may have to rethink my position on that little adventure :D ).

I can't see the SC essentially negating the 2A. They may refuse cert or issue some quibbling limited scope decision that neither side is really happy with. Otherwise, I think they all know that they are courting outright revolution. (don't get the little old ladies in MT riled up ;) )
 
This is just my two cents

Perhaps I'm missing the point, but I think that the second amendment has been misinterpreted all these years.
I don't think that "the people" is necessarily the "militia", rather "regulators" of the militia, with arms, to stand against the militia being perverted against the people, as Ben Franklin warned might happen. I don't recall the document, but I recall him warning that the roll of the militia could be perverted against the people in time of peace, (when they had no one to fight, I suppose). This leads me to believe that the arms of "the people" are to stand to deter this from happening.

It is my assertion that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is essential to keep our state free of tyranny from our government (who is supposed to be by, of, and for the people) using the militia on us.

I don't actually consider myself to be "part of the militia, but let the governor cry, "Ma, Pa, grab your gun and come a' runnin' " and see how fast I'm there.

Am I alone here???
 
As long as the Government stays in Iraq, uses the National Guard like it does the people will be in a better position regarding rights.

I wonder if the government printed up some extra money and said to all gun owners, you can have no more than 3 in your house hold, we will buy the rest back at a fair price.

After all it is a capitalist society.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
  • Locked
Department of Justice: Second Amendment Is Individual Right
Replies
1
Views
434
Michigander
M
2
  • Locked
The Second Amendment and the Preamble to the Bill of Rights
Replies
7
Views
421
Combat-wombat
C
D
  • Locked
Second Amendment Solidified
Replies
14
Views
874
RealGun
RealGun
M
  • Locked
Case Law; U.S. Supreme Court and the Second Amendment
Replies
0
Views
460
Mr Jody Hudson
M
S
  • Locked
Second Amendment Solidified, by the USDOJ ...
Replies
8
Views
449
GEM
G
Back
Top