There essentially IS no militia...obviously a well regulated militia is NOT necessary anymore...hence the Constitution does not deal with gun ownership
No they didn't. But, be my guest and explain how you think they did this. What, in your mind, and when did all this happen?
OMG. Did you read posts # 169 and #170? It's on page 9 of this thread. Do you even understand what a militia is about? Regardless of whether you think a militia is necessary, it has nothing, zilch, nada, to do with whether or not you have an individual Right to keep and bear Arms. That was made very plain in posts #169 and # 170. Wait. If you don't know how to look for them, I'll post them again by way of replying to them. Hold on...
There you go lesh. The Right exists and the Supreme Court can't do squat to repeal it. What, exactly, are you disputing here? Would you gut the First Amendment if you could see no further use for free speech and you decided you hate religion?????
A State Defense Force is not a State Militia although they are often improperly referred to as a militia. A state militia can be called up for service by the US Congress (Article I Section but the State Defense Forces cannot be called into service by the federal government There were no standard production shotguns then or now with a barrel length of less than 18". In fact, excluding special operations, that standard US Military shotguns are the M500 and M590 that are basically standard full length barrel Mossberg pump shot guns. That's a nice statement but I can't think of any commerce regulation, short of banning the sale of all firearms, that would prevent a person from being able to keep and bear arms. Even if all sales were prohibited then, under the 2nd Amendment, the argument becomes legitimate that people could manufacturer their own firearms for their personal use, but just not sell them. Even if we prohibited the sale of a new .223 caliber semiautomatic magazine fed Bushmaster rifles (that doesn't remove any existing in the public) a person can still go out and purchase a .223 caliber semiautomatic magazine fed rifle that is virtually identical functionally to the Bushmaster. The same argument against banning "assault rifles" based upon appearance is also the same argument against not banning "assault rifles based upon appearance because both arguments are based upon an irrelevant criteria.
Nobody is going to be successful at banning guns in my lifetime. You'd be better off to think about what you can do to keep crazy people and real "criminals" off the streets.
Do we or do we not have a "well regulated Militia" that would require citizens to have arms available? We do not
Not related to the militia? Exactly backwards. The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon. In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen 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.
That is "required?" The U.S.C. militia statute, states: §246. Militia: composition and classes (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. Lots of states have applicable militia statutes: http://www.constitution.org/mil/law/table_state_militia_laws.pdf Now, we continue to answer your question, but no matter how many times you rephrase it, the facts are the facts. The founding fathers told us the purpose of the Second Amendment and how we "regulate" the militia: “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "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, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788 You cannot have a militia as the founding fathers without the whole body of people being able to always possess arms. IF you want to be in the militia, if you meet the criteria, own a weapon, you and make a declaration that you are volunteering, you're militia... HOWEVER, whether you join the militia or not, you still have an individual Right to keep and bear Arms. Now, this has been explained to you over and over and over again. Either you are ignoring the facts OR you don't understand enough to participate in this discussion.
You're backwards: Under Wikipedia's article on sawed off shotguns, they say: "Barrels can be manufactured at shorter lengths as an alternative to traditional, longer barrels. This makes them easier to transport due to their smaller profile and lighter weight. The design also makes the weapon easy to maneuver in cramped spaces, a feature sought by military close quarters combat units, law enforcement SWAT team users, and home defense purposes. ...Powerful and compact, the weapon is especially suitable for use in small spaces, such as close quarters combat in a military context." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sawed-off_shotgun
None of which changes the fact that you are incorrect in your interpretation on the matter. (f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, 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 the exact citation by the united states supreme court. That is the final say in the matter, and the only say that has any legal importance. Your interpretation is not only incorrect, is has been rejected by the highest legal authority in the entire united states. Miller dealt exclusively with the legality of a sawed off shotgun, and absolutely nothing else. The united state supreme court ruled on firearms being protected by the second amendment for private ownership, not militia service. In Heller they even noted that if Miller dealt with militia service, there would be no reason for them to consider the type of firearm in the case. No matter how many times you deny the truth, no matter how many times you repeat a false narrative, nothing changes the fact that you are wrong. Cease and desist in wasting the time of others with conduct that is indistinguishable from than the whining of a petulant child that does not get its way.
You're relying on a militia act written well after the Constitution . We do not HAVE a well regulated militia
The only other reference to the militia in the CONSTITUTION is this Article 1; section 8, clauses 15 and 16 of the federal constitution, granted Congress the power to "provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia", as well as, and in distinction to, the power to raise an army and a navy. The US Congress is granted the power to use the militia of the United States for three specific missions, as described in Article 1, section 8, clause 15: "To provide for the calling of the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions. THAT was the militia when the Constitution was written and THAT was was what the 2nd is about.
And according to the united state supreme court, such does not invalidate the constitutional right held by the people, to own firearms for legal purposes.
well we do, but just whose side are they on! We have few example of here that claim to be military but I'll be damned if I'd want or trust them behind me if rallying the charge against a oppressive and overreaching Gubmint
You're wrong. There will never, ever be a time where an armed populace is not a deterant to invasion.
You have no one to oppose because no major political party has ever endorsed banning all firearms. I've made proposals to help prevent "crazy people" and real "criminals" from acquiring firearms and using firearms. For example: I've already advocated that when a court issues a restraining order against a person based upon a "threat of violence" that is common during a divorce the person should be required to surrender all firearms to a responsible custodian (i.e. gun shop or law enforcement) temporarily placed upon the FBI NICS database until the restraining order is lifted without exception. The person under restraint should be required to pass a mental heath review ordered by the court and another review by the court before the lifting of the restraining order, There have been far to many cases of murder following the automatic lifting of temporary restraining orders without review.. I've already advocated providing access to the general public to the FBI NICS database so that a seller can run a background check before selling a firearm to ensure the buyer isn't a prohibited person. It is a responsible act for any seller. Then change the law so that anyone selling a firearm to a prohibited person (on the FBI NICS database at the time of sale) is guilty of a felony because they have no excuse for selling a firearm to a prohibited person and they are a real "criminal" if they sell a firearm to a prohibited person. I've already advocated that a license be required for the carrying of firearms in in public place. For general carry this could be the expansion of the CCW permits to cover both open and concealed carry. For special purposes such as hunting the hunting license could be used for that purpose. In all cases a background check would be required for public carry. Firearms in public, regardless of whether they're concealed or not, represent a threat to the public safety that is a legitimate concern of government. I would advocate that individuals that commit acts of violence, including misdemeanor acts, be subjected to psychiatric examination to determine if they are prone to violence and, if so, they should be subjected to a restraining order related to firearms by the court that can only be lifted by appeal to the court. I'm not opposed to limiting the ammunition capacity of firearms including magazine capacity to ten rounds (with a licensing exception for recognized competitions if any exist) . No one should ever require more than ten rounds for any common lawful purpose such as hunting, organized competition, or self defense and the argument "just because I want more" doesn't float the Constitutional boat. . Now, what have you advocated?
Actually it's the propaganda about the armed population that's the only deterrent. It would be the "300 million plus" firearms in public hands that might be a deterrent and even that's really questionable because it might simply be ignored. What not an actual deterrent are the actual types of firearms and the people that posses them. Additionally the deterrent value is very limited when compared to the military deterrent for one simple reason. The only serious concern for the invading army is how to disarm the population and not how to fight it. . .
I love it Shiva_TD. You ask me in big bold letters what I have advocated. It's almost as if you want posters to think I haven't proposed solutions to your concerns. That's not being honest, is it? As far as I can remember I was the first person to notice the link between SSRIs (Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors) and mass shootings. All a person has to do is say to their doctor or mental health provider that they are considering hurting themselves; that they are depressed; they have thoughts of killing our hurting themselves or others. Those magic words will get the individual a prescription for SSRIs (Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, etc.) In EVERY mass shooting in the United States, the shooter has been under the care of a psychiatrist or psychologist AND on SSRIs OR has been a political terrorist. Let's stick with those on SSRIs since they are the most prevalent. What have I advocated? That is a fair question. I advocated that prescribing SSRIs be the last option for doctors. People with those problems need to be evaluated carefully, put into both one on one therapy AND group therapy. Those on SSRIs belong in protective custody! That way, the MILLIONS of dopers cannot use the medical profession as an easy avenue to get feel good drugs. But, it's boring and it's not about banning guns. It's addressing the problem. But, you don't care, the anti-gun lobby don't care, and neither do gun owners. Nobody wants a solution to the concerns. Shall we keep going? Your silly idea of running background checks is about as effective as a eunuch in a brothel. So, let us talk solution - and solutions calculated toward addressing the concern. You want to create prohibited classes of citizens. Instead of creating different classes of citizens, I advocated keeping those who pose a threat by virtue of mental health issues in protective custody. Now let us talk about "criminals." What the United States currently does is to put all those with mental health problems, drug addictions and so forth into prisons. The United States has more people in prison than anywhere else on the planet. We still have this idiotic idea from the Quakers that you can put someone away in a cell and they will magically transform back into a God fearing asset to society. And so, we lock people into prisons where they get involved in gang activity and learn new ways to commit crimes. Many end up in small cells, alone for days, weeks and even months on end. They have no interaction with their fellow man and end up cutting themselves and beating their heads into walls. When their time is up, you take these human animals out of a cage, kick them out on the street, and tell them to be productive citizens. You give them a record and subject them to background checks. So, here they are with not only with the drug problem they had going in and the emotional problems, but they are back in society with no education, no job skills, NO and I mean NO experience in people skills and the background check denies them the opportunity to get a job, credit, or even go to school. Those that DO rise above all of that, you want labeled and denied the opportunity to return to society as your equal. NOW ASK ME WHAT I'M ADVOCATING. You need prison reform so that people who come out of prison are not recidivists. They commit a crime and you punish them; you educate them; you rehabilitate them; you prepare them to succeed in society. You return them as equals. And if you can't trust them back into society, you don't set them free. I have a lot of ideas regarding prison reform... like requiring people to get at the very least a GED to be considered for release. Prisoners would learn how to balance a check-book and make up their bed. They would learn problem solving skills and have therapy sessions to deal with emotional problems. They'd be way too busy to engage in gang activity while incarcerated. In my world, I would not extend citizenship to those who belong to religions that are at war with the United States... Shiva_TD, I've advocated a Hell of a lot. I'm even considering starting a ministry to help men who come out of prison. The local woods in most towns are full of those you hate and loathe. I would like to take them off the street, give them a place to shower and shave. They need a place to get a meal and some decent clothes on their back... a place to get a GED and then a job. Instead of trying to keep records and deny these people an opportunity to be citizens, I'm advocating rehabilitating them. But that addresses the ROOT of the problem and you don't want to hear it.