Gun Control

[scooter_the_shooter]

I won't get into this that much because people in general don't have a clue what they are talking about on both sides when it comes to gun control. I haven't even read most of the thread (so this may have been mentioned).


But I figured I'd help my side once. Many anti gunners say that guns can only go to the militia according to the 2nd amendment but what they dont realize is.....they are in the militia.



a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.



http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com

[Crazed Rabbit]

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.

Confused about the meaning? Consider the Senate Report on the Issue from 1982:
http://www.guncite.com/journals/senrpt/senrpt.html

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights.)

"The great object is that every man be armed ... Everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution.)

"The advantage of being armed ... the Americans possess over the people of all other nations ... Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several Kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in his Federalist Paper No. 26.)

"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." (Second Amendment to the Constitution.)
...
The history of the Second Amendment indicates that its purposes were to secure to each individual the right to keep and bear arms so that he could protect his absolute individual rights as well as carry out his obligation to assist in the common defense. It is evident that the framers of the Constitution did not intend to limit the right to keep and bear arms to a formal military body or organized militia, but intended to provide for an "unorganized" armed citizenry prepared to assist in the common defense against a foreign invader or a domestic tyrant. This concept of an unorganized, armed citizenry clearly recognized the right, and moreover the duty, to keep and bear arms in an individual capacity.

So there you have it.

If the 2nd Amendment is in dispute, in order to bring about gun control legislation Congress first must go through the amendment process to the United States Constitution. You can not argue for gun control saying that the United States Constitution is unclear. The second part of the sentence states very clearly what the amendment means. That the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Quoted for truth. You cannot bypass the constituion by claiming a section is in dispute, as though that means you can completely ignore it.

As it happens, there is basically no dispute amoung serious constitutional scholars. It's just the modern nanny-staters don't like it.

CR

[Tribesman]

As it happens, there is basically no dispute amoung serious constitutional scholars. It's just the modern nanny-staters don't like it.

Thats strange , since the link Ceasar provides gives this.......

Related FindLaw Resources  
Findlaw Resources 
Visit the Litigation Practice Center 
Sign up for a FindLaw Newsletter 
 
 
 
 

 

Main Index > Cases and Codes > U.S. Constitution > Second Amendment 

U.S. Constitution: Second Amendment
Second Amendment - Bearing Arms 


Amendment Text | Annotations 
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. 

 

Annotations
In spite of extensive recent discussion and much legislative action with respect to regulation of the purchase, possession, and transportation of firearms, as well as proposals to substantially curtail ownership of firearms, there is no definitive resolution by the courts of just what right the Second Amendment protects. The opposing theories, perhaps oversimplified, are an ''individual rights'' thesis whereby individuals are protected in ownership, possession, and transportation, and a ''states' rights'' thesis whereby it is said the purpose of the clause is to protect the States in their authority to maintain formal, organized militia units.1 Whatever the Amendment may mean, it is a bar only to federal action, not extending to state2 or private3 restraints. The Supreme Court has given effect to the dependent clause of the Amendment in the only case in which it has tested a congressional enactment against the constitutional prohibition, seeming to affirm individual protection but only in the context of the maintenance of a militia or other such public force. 


In United States v. Miller,4 the Court sustained a statute requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawed-off shotguns. After reciting the original provisions of the Constitution dealing with the militia, the Court observed that ''[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted with that end in view.''5 The significance of the militia, the Court continued, was that it was composed of ''civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.'' It was upon this force that the States could rely for defense and securing of the laws, on a force that ''comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,'' who, ''when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.''6 Therefore, ''[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well- regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. 

If there is no definative resolution then it is disputed isn't it , so how the hell can there be no dispute ?

BTW Rabbit , to your earlier "Tribsey" post , you should know by now , read what is written , read exactly what is written

[Crazed Rabbit]

A few things, tribesy:
I said 'basically no dispute'. Of course, we can't rely on you not to make a strawman with every post.

I also said by serious scholars, not long dead supreme court justices who didn't know what they were talking about when they decreed that a 17 1/2 inch shotgun had no use in war, and thus upheld a law as not infringing on militia arms that also, blatantly obvious even to idiots such as themselves, affected weapons of wars, like the BAR machinegun.

Put a little effort into reading my link:

Within our own century, the only occasion upon which the Second Amendment has reached the Supreme Court came in United States v. Miller.[63] There, a prosecution for carrying a sawed off shotgun was dismissed before trial on Second Amendment grounds. In doing so, the court took no evidence as to the nature of the firearm or indeed any other factual matter. The Supreme Court reversed on procedural grounds, holding that the trial court could not take judicial notice of the relationship between a firearm and the Second Amendment, but must receive some manner of evidence. It did not formulate a test nor state precisely what relationship might be required. The court's statement that the amendment was adopted "to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such [militia] forces" and "must be interpreted and applied with that end in view", when combined with the court's statement that all constitutional sources "show plainly enough that the militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.... these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time,"[64] suggests that at the very least private ownership by a person capable of self defense and using an ordinary privately owned firearm must be protected by the Second Amendment. What the Court did not do in Miller is even more striking: It did not suggest that the lower court take evidence on whether Miller belonged to the National Guard or a similar group. The hearing was to be on the nature of the (p.11)firearm, not on the nature of its use; nor is there a single suggestion that National Guard status is relevant to the case.

Even what you posted goes against the nanny-stater interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

That is all.

CR

[Tribesman]

I said 'basically no dispute'. Of course, we can't rely on you not to make a strawman with every post.

Oh I see , so when you say there is basically no dispute you actually mean there is a dispute but you don't consider dispute to be dispute .

Even what you posted goes against the nanny-stater interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

Hmmmmmm....so you attribute my post to be supporting some other interpretation ? thats interesting , would that be basically another disputed position on the 2nd .

also said by serious scholars, not long dead supreme court justices who didn't know what they were talking about when they decreed that a 17 1/2 inch shotgun had no use in war, and thus upheld a law as not infringing on militia arms that also, blatantly obvious even to idiots such as themselves, affected weapons of wars, like the BAR machinegun.

Now that is just too funny , I wonder what the long dead people who wrote the constitutionand its amendments knew about a BAR ?
Its also funny that you consider the supreme court who rule on such things as not being serious scholars .
Whodathunk that the people whose job entails legal ruling covering the interpretation and implementation of a document hadn't put any serious scholastic study into the document they work with . I suppose they hadn't studied law either .
Obviously they are just blatant idiots who have never been serious scholars

[Crazed Rabbit]

Oh I see , so when you say there is basically no dispute you actually mean there is a dispute but you don't consider dispute to be dispute .

If I had a dollar for every time you used a strawman, I'd be filthy rich.

Hmmmmmm....so you attribute my post to be supporting some other interpretation ? thats interesting , would that be basically another disputed position on the 2nd .

Ah, the classic tribesy hang-up on a single word. "Help! This one word confuses me because I'm unable to comprehend English!"
Also, your post doesn't support some other interpretation- it supports the interpretation that the second amendment is an individual right, which agrees with what I said.

Do you have any evidence of a wide dispute about the second amendment amoung constitutional scholars?

As it happens, there is basically no dispute amoung serious constitutional scholars. It's just the modern nanny-staters don't like it.

Try to understand; amoung scholars studying the constitution, there is broad consensus that the second amendment amounts to an individual right. Do you disagree with the idea of a second amendment as an individual right? Think a bit before answering; I'm not asking for your opinion on other's views of it, but what you think. That is, I'm trying to get you to actually debate the idea, and not pollute the thread with pathetic complaints of semantics.

Its also funny that you consider the supreme court who rule on such things as not being serious scholars .
Whodathunk that the people whose job entails legal ruling covering the interpretation and implementation of a document hadn't put any serious scholastic study into the document they work with .

You're ignoring the substance, and messing up the frivolities. Re-read the ruling you posted and what I posted and try and think a bit about how they screwed the ruling up. Also, did I argue there was no dispute amoung scholars of the 1930s?

CR

[Tribesman]

If I had a dollar for every time you used a strawman, I'd be filthy rich.

No straw man there Rabbit , you set up a position that doesn't have any legs .

Do you have any evidence of a wide dispute about the second amendment amoung constitutional scholars?

Yes , you posted it

Try to understand; amoung scholars studying the constitution, there is broad consensus that the second amendment amounts to an individual right.

A broad consensus , that doesn't mean no dispute does it , plus it had to be disputed for them to even consider trying to reach an agreement on what it meant .

"Help! This one word confuses me because I'm unable to comprehend English!"

So what English do you not understand Rabbit ?

I'm trying to get you to actually debate the idea, and not pollute the thread with pathetic complaints of semantics.

Then think about what you write Rabbit , since you wish to focus on the precise meaning of the wording of the badly worded amendment then you should be able to understand the importance for clear word usage .

Do you disagree with the idea of a second amendment as an individual right? Think a bit before answering; I'm not asking for your opinion on other's views of it, but what you think.

My opinion , it is a badly written amendment , lacking in substance and detail , contradictory and pretty worthless really .
Which is why some people are so fond of it .