Is there an implied federal power to regulate guns within the Second Amendment? Clearly, the Founders wanted the federal government to be able to maintain an effective militia in order to protect state security. How effective would the militia have been if it had been outgunned by criminals? Thus, it seems that the federal government should be empowered to pass the necessary gun laws to keep guns out the wrong hands. Such laws could arguably include universal background checks or permit to purchase laws.
Is there an implied federal power to regulate words within the first amendment? Or an implied power to regulate locations within the fourth amendment? Such would not extend to all firearms ever made, however. Such is of no relevance. The united states constitution, and specifically the bill of rights, were not drafted for the purpose of regulating the actions of private individuals. They were drafted specifically and exclusively for defining the role of government, and setting limits on what its authority entails. The purpose of the united states constitution was to make government subservient to the people, not the other way around. Even the firearm-related restrictions of the nation of Mexico have done absolutely nothing to prevent such, and their government owns the only licensed firearm distributor to be found in the entire country. The same laws have failed to prevent the recent mass shootings in the united states, even when the individual was subjected to numerous involuntary commitments for mental health reasons. Therefore it is known to be a fact that such firearm-related restrictions can do absolutely nothing beneficial
we should be mustering the militia until we have no security problems. weapons qualification is a form of "gun control".
Beyond the original points mentioned, one more thing must be considered. The very founding of the united states was nothing less than an act of treason committed by the founding fathers. By breaking away from the rule of the nation of England in order to form their own nation, each one of them was committing an illegal act they could be executed for. There would simply be no reason for the founding fathers to oppose criminals legally owning firearms, when they were criminals themselves.
The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. A person who pursues proper training and skill is well regulated. The 2nd Amendment applies to ALL legal activity with firearms, such as hunting, target shooting, and self-defense. The Founders were very clear about this... and they would NOT have "laughed at" a person exercising his right to be armed as part of feeding himself and his family. It was, after all, Thomas Jefferson who spoke of all Americans' "right and duty to be at all times armed." (Emphasis mine)
We cannot agree on everything. But let's see what points we can agree on. Looks like we can agree that weapons should never be sold to anybody who is not properly trained and has shown proper skills, right? We can also agree that weapons, ammo and other related items that are not designed for those purposes, should not be available (except in very qualified circumstances). What those are, TBD. Right?
I taught constitutional law and have lectured on the second amendment at several major league law schools. The text of the constitution says no such thing.
I have discussed this a million times. Often with self-proclaimed constitutional experts. Not meaning to sound condescending, or anything. Some of them might have known about law. But not enough about linguistics. The fact is that the text of the Constitution says ... well what it says. That the right to bear arms shall not be infringed to the people as part of a well regulated militia. In other words, this is a right that applies in a military context to those who form part of a well regulated militia. What "well regulated" means is defined elsewhere. But my arguments are based on linguistics. In other words, what the text of the Constitution meant to a typical educated English speaker at the time. And, of course, the Heller decision completely (and pretty much arbitrarily) changed the original meaning of the text. And is now the law of the land. I realize that. But I am only going by the text of the Constitution. I will read your response tomorrow, as right now I must step out.
This is an interesting, but erroneous assumption. The founders saw the states as the place where any regulation of firearms usage would be handled. Nothing in the constitution even hints of the founders wanting the federal government to have any such power, and the second amendment-a negative power-ie a restriction on the federal government-is further proof of that
The second amendment was intended to guarantee a natural right of self defense-NOTHING in the amendment was intended or provides the federal government any additional powers. Here is your main error-you have to understand that the founders, the contemporary legal scholars and the courts-including the Cruikshank court in the 1870s=all believed and intended that the second amendment merely recognized an existing right-a right the founders believed existed from the dawn of man's time on earth. Cruikshank acknowledges that-in noting that the right was not dependent on the constitution. Now if we accept that the founders intended to recognize a right that man was endowed by the creator, from the first days of man's existence, HOW CAN anyone honestly claim that this right ONL VESTS after membership in a state regulated entity?
It does not. The role of the united states constitution, and especially the bill of rights, is to limit the role, scope, and authority of the federal government. It was not intended to control and regulate the actions of the individuals.
The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
Only well regulated militias may be exempted from the Police power of a State when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
Actually, the militia referred to in 2A is explained in Art. 1 Sec. 8 and the Militia Acts. Also, the second half of the amendment refers to English common law and the right to defend oneself. What the framers did was use the natural right to justify mandatory military service (as required in the Militia Acts) because they wanted to avoid a large, standing army. That turned out to be a bad idea after what happened during the War of 1812, where militia were found to be deficient in terms of training. And as military forces became more complex and with more specialized roles (navies, and later air power) dependence on militias became even more illogical, which is why the last Militia Act led to the formation of the National Guard. Today, what is left of 2A is the Selective Service System, where male citizens are merely required to register, from which the government may conscript. To see 2A is action, try Switzerland.
There are no individual terms expressed in our Second Amendment; where are you getting your implied individual rights, with no individual terms?
It is fun watching the revisionist nonsense that people conjure up in order to pretend that the individual right to KBA does not exist.
Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not Individual rights. Why do You believe our Founding Fathers expressed only collective and plural terms in our Second Article of Amendment, if what they really really meant was a private and individual right to keep and bear Arms external to the security of a free State?
Sure. The right to self defense is a right of every nation in the world. I don't see where we disagree. The text refers specifically to a military scenario. It would make no sense to call upon a well regulated militia to protect the self defense of an individual. And the idiom used "bear arms", refers to a military scenario. The idiom "carry weapons", or similar, would be more appropriate for other scenarios. Ok... I'll have to stop you right there because I believe I made it clear that I am talking about the text in the Constituion. Ulterior interpretations may be legally valid and binding. But it's not what is written and what the words meant in the minds of all those who approved the text as written. This is your error. And the error of all legal scholars who have extended the 2nd A to anything beyond a military context basing their decision on the text. And I don't care if their name is Antonin Scalia.... Whom I would not dare touch in a debate dealing with legal matters. But clearly had to resort to some very creative "magical" contortions to force a completely subjective linguistic interpretation of the text. Is this what you claim? Because if it is, then it's a religious argument. And we are in agreement that this so-called "individual" right to bear arms" comes from.... whatever you want. But not from the text of the 2nd A. Not even from the Constitution, if this is the case. Because that one only refers to a subset of this "God-given right". Which is that right as applied in a military scenario. So being a Constitutional Scholar wouldn't help much. Or a linguist, for that matter. We would need a ...Theologist, maybe?
well I have the following on my side The words and speeches of the founders The underlying concepts of natural law and rights-while that was a belief, it guides us as to what the founders intended All the leading contemporary scholars of the era-most importantly, St George Tucker the few court cases that dealt with the issue for the first100 years of the nation I note, that after 40+ years of serious study of the bill of rights, and the second amendment in particular, that every person I have ever met, who tries to argue against the individual right, is someone who=-for emotional, or political reasons-was ANTI GUN before they undertook their "scholarship" They start from a position that guns are bad and need further restrictions-then run into the constitutional obstacles, and THEN begin a journey of revisionism.
I don't know what "control" or "regulation" you are talking about. The 2nd A simply ensures that anybody who is part of a well-regulated militia can bear arms. Very important at the time, given that there was not much of a standing army, but lots of threats. Not so important right now, though.
you do understand that one's RKBA is not dependent on being in the militia or even qualified or required to serve in the militia at some point
that is not what our Second Amendment is about. Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty to keep and bear Arms.
Yeah you keep repeating that silliness over and over and you're wrong. Completely wrong, totally wrong, without a doubt wrong.
