patrick.net

I agree with the Supreme Court and lower courts in their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment in that the right of the people of a well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, shall not be infringed when it comes to bearing arms. It's only because of the NRA and gun lobbyists that everyone in their brother feels like they can be packing heat.

Suburban Gal says

I agree with the Supreme Court and lower courts in their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment in that the right of the people of a well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, shall not be infringed when it comes to bearing arms. It's only because of the NRA and gun lobbyists that everyone in their brother feels like they can be packing heat.

Gun ownership today is more of a privilege than a right. Here in CA:
- you undergo a background check and must be of age
- you cannot be a convicted felon
- you cannot have a mental health disorder
- you must demonstrate very rudimentary (laughable I would say) competence with the firearm you are purchasing
- you must pass a small multiple choice test on gun laws
- you must pay a processing fee

I'm all for tougher standards on all of the above, including licensing, and repeated testing for actual competency (shooting, safe secure storage, and handling).

Rew says

Gun ownership today is more of a privilege than a right.

Not the wat most pro-firearm people see it so I'm pretty sure your privilege comment isn't going to go over very well with some of them.

Suburban Gal says

Rew says

Gun ownership today is more of a privilege than a right.

Not the wat most pro-firearm people see it so I'm pretty sure your privilege comment isn't going to go over very well with some of them.

That's true. The constitution says very clearly "arms" and doesn't define more deeply what those are. That wasn't an accident.

Rew says

- you cannot be a convicted felon
- you cannot have a mental health disorder

Welcome to Obama's America! I remember when Americans didn't have a nanny state telling you you can't carry a weapon just 'cause you're crazy or a criminal! What next? Will they make drinking and driving illegal?!?!!?

Suburban Gal says

I agree with the Supreme Court and lower courts in their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment in that the right of the people of a well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, shall not be infringed when it comes to bearing arms.

I agree with the Founding Fathers and court rulings affirming that the second amendment recognizes an individual right such as District of Columbia v. Heller and applies to all governments federal through local as in McDonald v. Chicago.

It's only because of the NRA and gun lobbyists that everyone in their brother feels like they can be packing heat.

Nope. In both passed and ratified versions of the amendment

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.

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.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" is an explanatory clause which exists independent of the operative clause, making an important statement about why the second clause exists but not changing its meaning.

"I bought a Porsche 911 Turbo" is a statement of fact.

"Having passed my 40th birthday and cashed out my 401K, I bought a Porsche 911 Turbo" doesn't change that I bought a new car but implies I did so because I'm impulsive and reckless with money.

"After netting $20M from my startup IPO and finding a nice used 1996 model, I bought a Porsche 911 Turbo" says that I got a nice car after thinking about it some and the impact on my budget was like when many couples drive down the coast and spend a weekend at a hotel.

You have to be willfully ignorant, illiterate, or delusional to believe that the Second Amendment does not apply to all "the people" who have not been deprived of their liberty through due process of law, where "the people" is a term of art held to include citizens and those who intend to become citizens.

Disagreeing that it should remain in effect as written, speaking your mind, and rallying support for an amendment to limit, replace, or repeal it is rational.

Insisting loudly that English grammar works differently in sentences you do not like is unreasonable.

10 USC 311, etymology of regulated, the Federalist Papers, Founding Fathers' history, and English Bill of Rights of 1689 are interesting although the Second Amendment means what it does regardless of those things.

10 USC 311 formally defines the militia as all able bodied males at least 17 years of age and under 45 years of age who are or who intend to become citizens, female citizens in the National Guard, and former regular service members under aged 64 by reference to 32 USC 313. It specifies that the militia is comprised of two parts - organized (the National Guard) and unorganized (the rest of us). I'm guessing that you're not part of the militia, although you still have the right to keep and bear arms because the second amendment does not read "the right of the militia members to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Reading documents of the era, you'll find "regulation" meaning properly functioning or calibrated; as in a well-regulated watch that doesn't run fast and well-regulated double gun with both barrels sharing the same point of impact.

The Oxford English Dictionary is even more specific having an obsolete definition for regulated "Of troops: Properly disciplined" and "discipline" has a definition applying to the military, "Training in the practice of arms and military evolutions; drill. Formerly, more widely: Training or skill in military affairs generally; military skill and experience; the art of war."

Alexander Hamilton used "well-regulated" in this context in Federalist Paper 29 "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."

Regardless, that does not matter because the first clause is explanatory.

Madison's first draft read "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person." Having just broken free of England the Founding Fathers saw the need of an armed populace that could overthrow tyrants that came along in the future and moved the explanatory phrase prominently to the front. The draft is interesting and easier to read, but both phrasings have the right to keep and bear arms as an individual not collective one.

The Second Amendment has its roots in The English Bill of Rights of 1689 which states "That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law." With no state religion allowed by the constitution, no royalty, and a fear of tyranny we dropped the restrictions on the individual right and settled on the unambiguous

"shall not be infringed".

which is not "shall not be infringed by the several states" leaving Congress free to act nor "shall not be infringed except by Congress.

CL says

Welcome to Obama's America! I remember when Americans didn't have a nanny state telling you you can't carry a weapon just 'cause you're crazy or a criminal! What next? Will they make drinking and driving illegal?!?!!?

A psychiatric diagnosis of a mental health disorder is not a constitutionally valid reason to deprive people of their right to bear arms and defend themselves with the Fifth Amendment stating no person shall "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" and the Fourteenth explicitly stating that applies to the states too. It's also unreasonable when the disorder can be as minor as feeling a bit blue because the days are short in winter (Seasonal Affective Disorder). Lots of people are opposed to blanket prohibitions on "the mentally ill" owning guns because such laws can and will be abused. Perhaps after Republicans retake the Presidency an appointee in an executive branch agency will add belonging to the Democratic Party to the government list of mental health disorders.

Being adjudicated mentally defective means that a court or other legal body applied due process in determining that a person is either a danger to people or lacks the mental competency to live independently. This already makes firearms ownership illegal under 18 USC 922(g). Few gun owners are arguing that law be repealed.

How to argue as a pro-gun extremist:

1. Employ some facile, simple-minded argument.
2. Regurgitate a lot of nonsense that the NRA spent a bunch of its considerable wealth hiring bogus "historians" to churn out. This is easily done by copying and pasting from right wing websites.
3. Add a lot of cherry picked quotes from "founding fathers", also regurgitated from the NR A.
4. If anyone disagrees, call them names like "stupid", "delusional", etc
5. Deny that you've ever read any NRA literature.

Homeboy says

1. Employ some facile, simple-minded argument.
2. Regurgitate a lot of nonsense that the NRA spent a bunch of its considerable wealth hiring bogus "historians" to churn out. This is easily done by copying and pasting from right wing websites.
3. Add a lot of cherry picked quotes from "founding fathers", also regurgitated from the NR A.
4. If anyone disagrees, call them names like "stupid", "delusional", etc
5. Deny that you've ever read any NRA literature

Since the Supreme Court ruled that " the people means the people, in the Second Amendment, just as it does in the rest of the Constitution" I guess we'll have to call them a bunch of quote "cherry pickers" from the Founders.
( no cut and paste,no name calling,no NRA literature, and while it is a simple argument, are you saying SCOTUS is simple minded)
I hope I didn't cover too many points for you homeboy.

Suburban Gal says

I agree with the Supreme Co9urt and lower courts in their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment in that the right of the people of a well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, shall not be infringed when it comes to bearing arms. It's only because of the NRA and gun lobbyists that everyone in their brother feels like they can be packing heat.

Suburbangirl, the militia argument is invalid-dead - ruled out by SCOTUS and those lower courts, even the 9th circuit on the left coast

Suburban Gal says

I agree with the Supreme Court and lower courts in their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment in that the right of the people of a well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, shall not be infringed when it comes to bearing arms. It's only because of the NRA and gun lobbyists that everyone in their brother feels like they can be packing heat.

Not what it says.

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.

The comma separates the "why" from the "how". Then right of the PEOPLE (not the state) to keep (own) and bear (have on the person, not in an armory), shall NOT be infringed.

One bears a heavy burden by carrying it, one bears a hat. One does not bear anything stored 50 miles away.

bear
/be(É™)r/
Verb
(of a person) Carry: "he was bearing a tray".
Noun
A large, heavy, mostly omnivorous mammal of the family Ursidae that walks on the soles of its feet, with thick fur and a very short tail.

It is obviously not the latter.

The second ammendment was written because many states did not trust the new Federal government, expecially southern states. So the ammendment gave the States the right to have armies, and then the Civil War.

The intention of the 2nd ammendment had nothing to do with guns.

If the unwashed gun control nuts actually got their way and rammed through a ban on guns, retroactive, guns to be seized from private owners: we would probably get ourselves another civil war. Even many left leaning social democrats get pretty up tight when you start talking about jackbooted thugs breaking down doors to take their guns.
Obama is smarter than that. He knows the 2014 election will be a catastrophe for the Democrats if he caves to the gun control lobby and pushes a bill. He will have to do the responsible thing and attack the core problems instead, giving security to schools, something that is totally within his purview as POTUS.

StillLooking says

The intention of the 2nd ammendment had nothing to do with guns

Ok I'll bite. To what does it refer, when it speaks of the "right of the people to keep and bear arms"?
I know that a strict reading of the definition of a firearm could include a crossbow(lock, stock and barrel)
see drew_eckhardt's post above

My idea of gun control is hittin' what you were aimin'at!

"The comma separates the "why" from the "how". Then right of thePEOPLE(notthestate) to keep (own) and bear (have on the person, not in an armory), shall NOT be infringed."

Absurd. Show me a grammar text that says commas separate how from why. The wording of all the amendments tends to be quite terse. But when it suits your purpose, you all of a sudden argue that they were supposedly putting in clauses simply to "explain" the rights, but that allegedly don't affect the meaning? If the intent were to provide the right for personal self protection, it would say that. End of argument.

Now you can get upset, hurl insults, and post all the cherry picked NRA crap you like, but that won't change the facts.

The question is not whether the amendment refers to the people, the question is whether it's referring to a right to INDIVIDUAL self defense, and clearly it is not. Clearly it is within the context of an organized militia.

Quigley says

If the unwashed gun control nuts actually got their way and rammed through a ban on guns, retroactive, guns to be seized from private owners: we would probably get ourselves another civil war

As an authentic unwashed gun control nut, I can assure you that there's nothing to fear. You have the supreme court on your side AND 300 million privately owned guns. There's no possibility of a general ban on guns; no way, nohow. So can we have a real discussion of what can be done without every gun owner screaming "SLIPPERY SLOPE!!! FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS!!!!"?

Like, maybe you don't need semi-automatic guns or high capacity clips (or any external clips for that matter) for hunting/self defense/sports shooting?

On the other hand, if your starting point is that gun laws need to be lax enough for you to amass an arsenal capable of waging war against the US Government/The UN/The People's Republic of China then we're probably not going to get very far...

Homeboy says

The question is not whether the amendment refers to the people, the question is whether it's referring to a right to INDIVIDUAL self defense, and clearly it is not. Clearly it is within the context of an organized militia.

Constitutional law is a fun one. Here is a rephrasing of the 2nd amendment which I believe is applicable and in more plain language:

My Version:
"In order to have the ability to raise a well trained militia, the people shall have the right to carry and possess weapons."

As Written:
"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."

What is yours?

Homeboy has yet to explain why this Amendment: and only this Amendment: applies to a special group. The rest of them deal with individual rights. Not this one .

Homeboy says

Now you can get upset, hurl insults, and post all the cherry picked NRA crap you like, but that won't change the facts.

the only insults I've seen are from homeboy when he has no answer.

Hey peeps!

In brief, keep some arms, so we can raise a militia if needed. (What you got around, like maybe a rifle, or a pike, or pitchfork ... sure.)

Note: we would also prefer if you are going to keep arms, whatever they be, you kick ass and take names with them. Also keep them secure and properly such that they are not a danger to the general population. Like for gods sake, don't let crazy Joe or your kids at them.

Let's kill them R-coats!

Yours truly,
FF

Rew says

"In order to have the ability to raise a well trained militia, the people shall have the right to carry and possess weapons."

EXACTLY, my dad was a fighter pilot in WWII, and generally the best ones at shooting down enemy aircrft were country boys who were used to shooting game. they understood leading a target...same for the gunners on board bombers.

ownmyown says

his Amendment: and only this Amendment: applies to a special group. The rest of them deal with individual rights. Not this one

Well the thought "so what?" comes to mind, but even so, what you say isn't true. In the 5th Amendment is the phrase: "except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger". Since an exception is listed, the right being referred to clearly is not universal.

And as for your contention that "the rest of them deal with individual rights", that also is clearly not true. The First Amendment declares the "right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." An individual cannot be an assembly, by definition. Therefore, this is referring to a group right, not an individual one.

ownmyown says

the only insults I've seen are from homeboy when he has no answer.

Let's see a quote of any insults I have written in this thread.

Obviously, you are reading selectively.

drew_eckhardt says

You have to be willfully ignorant, illiterate, or delusional to believe that the Second Amendment does not apply to all "the people"

You don't believe "ignorant", "illiterate", and "delusional" are insults?

ownmyown says

StillLooking says

The intention of the 2nd ammendment had nothing to do with guns

Ok I'll bite. To what does it refer, when it speaks of the "right of the people to keep and bear arms"?

I know that a strict reading of the definition of a firearm could include a crossbow(lock, stock and barrel)

see drew_eckhardt's post above

My idea of gun control is hittin' what you were aimin'at!

First of all, gun control was not an issue then. So this amendment had nothing to do with guns.

The amendment was intended to let states raise armies. Thus we saw the Southern states well prepared before the civil war.

But since people don't know history we get these other interpretations

StillLooking says

ownmyown says

StillLooking says

The intention of the 2nd ammendment had nothing to do with guns

Ok I'll bite. To what does it refer, when it speaks of the "right of the people to keep and bear arms"?

I know that a strict reading of the definition of a firearm could include a crossbow(lock, stock and barrel)

see drew_eckhardt's post above

My idea of gun control is hittin' what you were aimin'at!

First of all, gun control was not an issue then. So this amendment had nothing to do with guns.

The amendment was intended to let states raise armies. Thus we saw the Southern states well prepared before the civil war.

But since people don't know history we get these other interpretations

As a tangential question, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 of the US Constitution gives Congress the ability

" To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"

When privateers were granted such letters of marque and reprisal what weapons were they supposed to use to capture enemy assets given a Constitution which does not protect the individual right to keep and bear arms?

Look when the Constitution was written banning guns was not an issue.

The issue was whether the individual states could raise armies to protect themselves against the Federal government.

The intention behind the second amendment was repealed by the Civil war

Homeboy says

Absurd. Show me a grammar text that says commas separate how from why. The wording of all the amendments tends to be quite terse. But when it suits your purpose, you all of a sudden argue that they were supposedly putting in clauses simply to "explain" the rights, but that allegedly don't affect the meaning? If the intent were to provide the right for personal self protection, it would say that. End of argument.

Basic reading comprehension. Scroll down to Comma Rule #4.
http://www.towson.edu/ows/modulecomma.htm

After many days at the mine, the workers were tired and angry.
Revenues being necessary to pay for services, the government raised the income tax.
To facilitate the transportation of goods and services, the state offered subsidies to private railroad companies.

The comma usage in the 2nd Amendment wording is awkward by modern standards, since the verb doesn't appear until the end of the sentence, but it is valid*:

"The punctuation that emerged in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries was consistent in just two respects: it was prolific and often chaotic."
--- Alphabet to email: How written english evolved and where it's heading. Naomi S. Baron, Routledge, London and New York 2000. P. 185

"Excessive punctuation was common in the 18th century: at its worst it used commas with every subordinate clause and separable phrase."
--- 15 ed. V.29, The New Encyclopaedia Britannica 1997. P. 1051

"In the 18-19c, people tended to punctuate heavily, especially in their use of commas."
--- The Oxford Companion to the English Language. Oxford New York, Oxford University Press 1992. Tom McCarthur ed. P. 824

*I just realized this sentence is also a similar example of commas separating clauses.

drew_eckhardt says

" To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"

When privateers were granted such letters of marque and reprisal what weapons were they supposed to use to capture enemy assets given a Constitution which does not protect the individual right to keep and bear arms?

Good point. And just because Congress hasn't authorized privateers in many years doesn't mean they don't have the power to do so if they want to in the future.

So just because most militias are organized and drilled regularly, doesn't mean the individual doesn't have a right to firearms.

This isn't Dark Ages France, where unexercised laws and privileges of the sovereign expire after so many years of disuse.

If that was the case, if you didn't vote for 20 years, somebody could argue your privilege to vote 'expired' as you didn't use it for so long.

And I think they should start granting Letters of Marque and Reprisal again.

Quigley says

He knows the 2014 election will be a catastrophe for the Democrats if he caves to the gun control lobby

There's a gun control lobby? I haven't heard any claiming to be a "proud, card-carrying and lifelong member" of that lobby?

They must be preeettttyyyy powerful. Did you see them pounce after Giffords?

StillLooking says

But since people don't know history we get these other interpretations

StillLooking says

The intention behind the second amendment was repealed by the Civil war

you should send that memo to the Supreme Court. They think it's an individual right, and have ruled that way for about the last 200 years

Homeboy says

The First Amendment declares the "right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." An individual cannot be an assembly, by definition. Therefore, this is referring to a group right, not an individual one.

so you are saying this does not apply to all the peopleHomeboy says

In the 5th Amendment is the phrase: "except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger".

and the exception is noted in the amendment as an exception
Supreme Court and lower court rulings say IT IS AN I-N-D-I-V-I-D-U-A-L RIGHT

Stricter gun crime punishment reduces violent crime. nationally the sentencing for gun crimes has been declining for the past 6 or 7 years. In Florida in 1999 10-20-life became the law. Use a firearm in a felony: 10 years minimum. Fire the weapon in a felony : 20 years minimum. Hit some one when you fire the weapon: LIFE. big ad campaign on tv and radio
by 2004 gun crime had dropped almost 30%
Punish criminals

thunderlips11 says

Basic reading comprehension. Scroll down to Comma Rule #4.
http://www.towson.edu/ows/modulecomma.htm

I don't see the sentence "commas separate the how from the why" there. And grammatical nitpicking is beside the point. You can't deny that the first clause is there. If the intent of the amendment was to guarantee the right to personal self-protection with a gun, then why is that first clause there?

ownmyown says

Homeboy says

The First Amendment declares the "right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." An individual cannot be an assembly, by definition. Therefore, this is referring to a group right, not an individual one.

so you are saying this does not apply to all the people

No, I did not say that.

ownmyown says

In the 5th Amendment is the phrase: "except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger".

and the exception is noted in the amendment as an exception
Supreme Court and lower court rulings say IT IS AN I-N-D-I-V-I-D-U-A-L RIGHT

I never said the right to indictment by Grand Jury wasn't an individual right. Please try to read what I write, because when you start acting condescending about things for which you are incorrect, it really makes you look bad. I said it's not a UNIVERSAL right. There are cases where the right does not apply. Similarly, there are cases when the right to bear arms doesn't apply - namely, when one is not participating in a militia.

But none of this matters. You are basically arguing that my interpretation of the Second Amendment is not valid because it would render the amendment "different" than the other amendments. However, YOUR interpretation (that the first clause is simply explanatory and carries no legal meaning) ALSO renders the amendment "different" than the other amendments. Is there an explanation of why the right to free speech is granted? No, there is not. Is there an explanation of why the right of free exercise of religion is granted? No, there is not.

Obviously, saying "your way makes it different than the other amendments" is a weak argument.

By the way, I'm still waiting for that quote of the "insults" I allegedly wrote in this thread.

Homeboy says

But none of this matters. You are basically arguing that my interpretation of the Second Amendment is not valid because it would render the amendment "different" than the other amendments. However, YOUR interpretation (that the first clause is simply explanatory and carries no legal meaning) ALSO renders the amendment "different" than the other amendments. Is there an explanation of why the right to free speech is granted? No, there is not. Is there an explanation of why the right of free exercise of religion is granted? No, there is not.

This has really been a lot of fun. Anti gun says if your'e not in a militia you have no gun right. The courts (5th Circuit, 9th Circuit and Supreme court) all have ruled that all of the people have the right to keep and bear arms, and specifically stated that

(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.

f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , 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.

That is from the Supreme Court , I don't see how it can be any clearer.

Homeboy says

By the way, I'm still waiting for that quote of the "insults" I allegedly wrote in this thread.

you have been a veritable Lord Fontleroy (on this thread)and I can't express my gratitude enough for your restraint from four letter words and insults.

Any one interested in checking may look up Kennesaw, Georgia. This is the town that passed a law requiring every household to have a working firearm and ammo for that weapon. Sub-Atlanta. Low crime. 2007 Family Circle Magazine said in 2007- one of top ten cities to raise a family