Supreme Court: 2nd Amendment NOT about militias

[BPSCG]

Let the duels of Burr and Hamilton resume their rightful place in American politics.

And let us not forget the 1850 fracas on the Senate floor between Missouri's Senator Thomas Hart Benton and Mississippi Senator Henry Foote.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Do you take the position that subsequent legislation passed since the Constitution's original drafting is not binding? Do you hold the laws the ATF tries to enforce as non binding? Do you hold that the distinction made between firearms in various act and elements of the US code to be non binding and invalid?

I was pointing out that consititutionaly the distinction you make does not exist. The basis of something being a firearm or not is not something that is significant as to a law being constitutional.

Please explain how you equate a drive by with a duel.

They are both based on the idea that violence is how you need to respond to personal slights. So they are very much the same and stem from the same sense of personal honor.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I'm delighted.

It is important to remember that the right to bear arms is there in part, and I think most importantly, to resist an unworthy government.

Which is of course why SAM's need to be legal. How else am I supposted to protect my house from their helicopters?

Home defense is one of the rights cited after all.

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

So even though the amendment specificially mentions militias, it isn't actually about militias? That's some crazy cognitive dissonance y'all got there, America!

I don't really want another gun thread, but seriously... let's have a semantics thread. How can any sane person read the sentence "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 not interpret it as being about militias?

All arguments about the rights of people to bear arms or not aside, trying to pretend that a sentence which includes the words "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" is not really about militias is just weird, isn't it?

I also note the utter disdain groups like the NRA have for those "well-regulated" words in the Amendment, too.

I dunno... the Ablative absolute^WP?

How about that, "the right of the people part?" Ever considered what that might do to the rest of the thing is it were decided that, "the people," was a collective, and not individual, designation?

Just asking.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Absolutely. That's exactly what the 2nd amendment says; it's exactly what SCOTUS has said; it's exactly what Darth Rotor said; and it's exactly what every supporter of gun ownership rights is thinking. You nailed it, PT. Well done.

That is what duels are about, someone dis's you and you fight them hopefuly kill them.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I was pointing out that consititutionaly the distinction you make does not exist. The basis of something being a firearm or not is not something that is significant as to a law being constitutional.

Please look into Article I of the Constitution before you try that again, section 8. You didn't bother to respond to my questions. Please do so.

They are both based on the idea that violence is how you need to respond to personal slights. So they are very much the same and stem from the same sense of personal honor.

Wrong again.

The duel is a very formal social ritual, and has existed in numerous human societies at various times and places.

The drive by has as much relation to a duel as your foot does to a jellyfish.

DR

 

[ponderingturtle]

So even though the amendment specificially mentions militias, it isn't actually about militias? That's some crazy cognitive dissonance y'all got there, America!

I don't really want another gun thread, but seriously... let's have a semantics thread. How can any sane person read the sentence "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 not interpret it as being about militias?

All arguments about the rights of people to bear arms or not aside, trying to pretend that a sentence which includes the words "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" is not really about militias is just weird, isn't it?

I also note the utter disdain groups like the NRA have for those "well-regulated" words in the Amendment, too.

Aparently the idea is that the founders like to pepper their documents with unrelated sentence fragments.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Speaking just semantically and not legally or philosophically, I think there is a legitimate case for exactly the position you deride.

"A well regulated militia being necessary" is the reason.

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is the means.

Reasoning being this:

If ever the state requires a militia, it will be unable to raise or keep one if the populace from which it is to be raised is unarmed. Therefore, the practical implication is that an individual has the right to keep and bear arms separate from any actual service in the militia.

The problem is that this is demonstrably not true.

So when the constitution uses falacious logic, it is still all fine?

 

[Darth Rotor]

The problem is that this is demonstrably not true.

Please support this vacant assertion with significant evidence, if you'd like to not be laughed at on this matter.

DR

 

[ponderingturtle]

Please look into Article I of the Constitution before you try that again, section 8. You didn't bother to respond to my questions. Please do so.

Not a thing in there differentiateing firearms from other sorts of arms.

Wrong again.

The duel is a very formal social ritual, and has existed in numerous human societies at various times and places.

Yes, it was taking the basic motives of killing someone because they steped on your shoe and socialy recognizing it.

This would mean that public stonings would be better than private honor killings because one is a formal social ritual.

The drive by has as much relation to a duel as your foot does to a jellyfish.

And yet the laws against dueling still come into play.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Please support this vacant assertion with significant evidence, if you'd like to not be laughed at on this matter.

DR

So do nations that broadly ban weapons have problems equiping their military?

When was the national guard BYOG?

 

[volatile]

Because it says "the right of the People", not "the right of the People who are part of a well regulated militia." Or maybe I'm just not sane.

The People can make up a well regulated militia and then bear arms, as part of that well-regulated militia. That's what the sentence means. It specifically establishes that well-regulated militias are necessary for the freedom of the state. Private gun ownership is almost the opposite of a well-regulated militia, isn't it?

If it meant "Everyone should have the right to bear arms", then there is semantically and syntactically no need for the militia clause. The insertion of such a clause specifically limits the People owning guns to those within the well-regulated militia, at least in any sensible reading.

Let's replace "well-regulated militia" with "dairy farm" and "arms" with "cows". Seems like a good swap right? "Militias" are coordinated ways of organising guns and putting them to collective use, dairy farms do the same with cows.

"Dairy farms being necessary for the milk supply of a free state, the right of the people to own cows shall not be infringed". This rendering clearly demonstrates that it is the collective use of the cows, and not the individual use, which the Amendment is suggesting "not be infringed".

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

Thank you, RenaissanceBi... Hey, wait, that's my sister, you !!!

Which one of my brother-in-laws are you?

 

[volatile]

Hi




I dunno... the Ablative absolute^WP?

How about that, "the right of the people part?" Ever considered what that might do to the rest of the thing is it were decided that, "the people," was a collective, and not individual, designation?

Just asking.

Of course.

The people, collectively as you rightly assert, have the right to bear arms in the form of the necessary well-regulated militias. Collectively. Not individually, and not outside of the Well-regulated militia.

In what way does uninhibited individual gun ownership necessarily pre-figure a well-regulated militia, which is the absolute opposite?

 

[marksman]

Not a thing in there differentiateing firearms from other sorts of arms.

At the time the Amendment was drafted, the term "arms" was limited in meaning to "weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity." For example, at the time of the Second Amendment, the federal government could restrict an individual's right to own a cannon (and often did), and many States as well required all cannon and cannonballs to be held at a central armory.

Thus, for purposes of the 2nd Amendment, "arms" does not include tanks, bombs, nukes, etc. Those can be restricted legally with no Constitutional issue being present.

 

[Suddenly]

Reading the opinion is always fun. Relying on a brief snippet about the decision by a reporter is not going to give a decent picture of what is really going on.


My opinion after a quick reading:

A bit predictable. My reading is that it answers the theoretical historical question but will have almost no effect on the practical state of the law. An academic victory for conservatives that won't significantly change gun laws as they stand today.

Mostly it is the same tired historical definition hair splitting that has plagued the debate over the years. Fair enough. I'm more concerned with the quality of the opinion than the conclusion, although I find Scalia's argument a jumbled collection of claims applied in a manner indicating a results-based analysis seeking to reverse longstanding accepted principles without admitting to doing so, this is more of a matter of opinion than a critical analysis.

Scalia spends a significant part of his time worrying about the dissent. Other than that he does some curious things. Like at one point saying the "keep and bear" clause should be defined by the everyday understanding of the words as to meaning, but is limited by historical legal doctrine as to the type of weapons it covers (no nukes).

He also somehow cites the Miller court's (the only other SC case dealing with the substance of 2nd amendment) ending its analysis by determining the gun at issue was not one commonly used in military purposes as supporting an individual right because the status of the defendants was not discussed. He is citing the lack of dicta (part of the opinion beyond what was necessary to decide the case and thus with no binding legal authority) as supporting one way or another his position.

Had the Court believed that the Second Amendment protects only those serving in the militia, it would have been odd to examine the character of the weapon rather than simply note that the two crooks were not militiamen.

This is the only passage that shocked me.... it takes an extremely unconservative attitude as to the role of the judiciary, that a court should not speak as to issues not necessary to decide a case. This line is not necessary to Scalia's conclusion, but it does not speak well as to his analysis. He does some similar things with a few other cases that touch on the second amendment but are silent as to substance of the amendment. While not as bad as above, still a bit odd.

The rationale for holding that the DC ban on hanguns is not a reasonable regulation is that they are really popular, and useful because one can dial the phone with one hand while holding the gun in the other. So much for judicial deference to legislative policy determinations.

There was no finding that this new formulation of the second amendment will apply to state gun laws, nor that it will overturn many federal laws. Scalia all but states that bans on automatic weapons are just peachy keen, as are provisions about felons and the mentally ill. The weakness of the holding finding the handgun ban not a reasonable regulation indicates that the practical effect of this opinion will be limited because it largely relies on present ownership patterns without noting that existing laws have a very solid effect on those patters.

 

[webfusion]

When was the national guard BYOG?

In the American War of Independence, the local militias were able to be formed as a result of the fact that individuals owned muskets. And bayonets.
Even during the US Civil War, the Confederacy was composed of troops that brought their own weapons when they joined.

 

[Jimbo07]

Wrong again.

The duel is a very formal social ritual, and has existed in numerous human societies at various times and places.

... and has been ridiculous every time. Whether sword or pistol, a duel comes from some crybaby being insulted...

** edited **

Got rid of the second part of my post, because I really just wanted to share my opinion on duelling.

 

[Giggywig]

The People can make up a well regulated militia and then bear arms, as part of that well-regulated militia. That's what the sentence means. It specifically establishes that well-regulated militias are necessary for the freedom of the state. Private gun ownership is almost the opposite of a well-regulated militia, isn't it?

If it meant "Everyone should have the right to bear arms", then there is semantically and syntactically no need for the militia clause. The insertion of such a clause specifically limits the People owning guns to those within the well-regulated militia, at least in any sensible reading.

Let's replace "well-regulated militia" with "dairy farm" and "arms" with "cows". Seems like a good swap right? "Militias" are coordinated ways of organising guns and putting them to collective use, dairy farms do the same with cows.

"Dairy farms being necessary for the milk supply of a free state, the right of the people to own cows shall not be infringed". This rendering clearly demonstrates that it is the collective use of the cows, and not the individual use, which the Amendment is suggesting "not be infringed".

The Court found that the prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause.
But why do you keep insisting your reading is the only sensible one? Why do you keep dismissing your opposition as unreasonable?

 

[volatile]

The Court found that the prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause.
But why do you keep insisting your reading is the only sensible one? Why do you keep dismissing your opposition as unreasonable?

The Court could announce that the sky was pink, it wouldn't change reality.

The sentence is about militias. The clause, which establishes "well-regulated militias" as "necessary" in fact seems to actively exclude private, unregulated gun ownership (because it is not "well-regulated", and has nothing to do with militias), and if you'd read it as you would any normal English sentence, that would become clear. The first clause establishes the conditions for bearing arms, quite clearly.

It really is baffling that someone can claim, as the OP does, that a sentence which includes the words "a well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state" isn't actually about militias at all. I don't understand the weird distortive lens that is the pro-gun lobby, at all.