Who believes the claim that the intent of the 2nd Amendment was to arm militias

Do you ever quote the opposition to show how the opposition is wrong, using their own words? He doesn't support Stevens at all.

 

Well if you are applying for the position of being my press spokesman then I am sorry to say the interview is not going so well for you. I have never said or even implied that the RKBA is dependent upon militia service.

I am saying the same thing you are. I am attacking the interpretation that claims the RKBA as protected in the amendment is limited to militia service, and I have argued that the right is not dependent on the needs of the militia or militia service.

Yes, I confess my posts are long. That is because I use citations to the constitution and case law, and I tend to go further than a simple statement of the position and actually offer some explanations for it.

But I sincerely apologize if I have missed the mark and caused some reading comprehension issue. It was my belief that you would take the time to read and understand what I am saying, and would therefore already know that we are in complete agreement.....

Nevertheless, if what I have said earlier is too wordy and/or proving too difficult to grasp then let me know and I will try to provide a simpler and shorter explanation.

You should not be wasting either your or my time attacking someone who agrees with you simply because you are incapable of distinguishing friend from foe.

 

I quoted Stevens to explain the false argument he makes. Then the rest of everything I said, in every post in that thread, is my attack on his false interpretation. Even in the very first post I made I criticize his inability to explain how his interpretation works.

I am not responsible for any man's reading level, but how can you not grasp what I have been saying?

 

Yes. No one can explain the interpretation that says the RKBA is dependent on the militia. That is the argument I have attacked.

If you are incapable of grasping this then I can only say: "I have failed you Anakin, I have failed you."

 

I'm not incapable of grasping this, I'm simply stating the above. If you fail to grasp that, I don't really care.

 

I know. What exactly do you take me to have been attacking about your argument?

 

It seemed the point of contention was the
Militia only interpretation of the Second 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."

The People should be Armed as individuals, not because of membership in the Militia, why ?
The People have a Right to be Armed, however, when activated as Miltia, the Right to Armed gives way to the Authority granted by assignment to the Militia and subject to all Regulations placed on the Militia by Government.

 

I've no point in contention but that the reason Stevens position is not logically provable is because it is an incorrect interpretation born of handwavium

 

The Fed power over the militia is of setting a minimum standard, not a max. Saying "you must at least have this " not saying "and you can't own this type of weapon". Once federalized properly after being called out properly they could I guess tell them to leave that there and let's move or something but then the people have the right not the militia so they still couldn't do anything about the populace at large having any arms.

 

Here I must disagree. Congress’ control over militia arms is absolute.

Under the old pre-constitutional system the states directly controlled militia arms. Their method of arming the militias was to draw upon the broader and pre-existing individual RKBA to arm the militias—requiring militia members to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves. This led to problems in the field when militias were thrown together with indifferent levels of training and incompatible arms.

The Federalists wanted central control over the organization and arming of the militias. The argument was if you wanted to rely upon the militias instead of a permanent federal standing army, then you must give Congress the unifying power to make the militias an effective fighting force:


"This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by congress." Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #29. (note how Hamilton is actually quoting the language of Article I)


The power over officer appointment was left with the states to allay any fears that a federal tyrant could corrupt the militias:


"What reasonable cause of apprehension can be inferred from a power in the Union to prescribe regulations for the militia, and to command its services when necessary, while the particular States are to have the sole and exclusive appointment of the officers? If it were possible seriously to indulge a jealousy of the militia upon any conceivable establishment under the federal government, the circumstance of the officers being in the appointment of the States ought at once to extinguish it. There can be no doubt that this circumstance will always secure to them a preponderating influence over the militia." Id.


And so the Constitution, as ratified, gave Congress this enormous power over the militias in Article I section 8:


Congress shall have the power:


To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;



And this power is rendered absolute by the supremacy clause found in Article VI:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

1/2

 

The effect of the supremacy clause cannot be overstated:

The Supremacy Clause gives Congress the power to pre-empt state law. A statute may contain an express preemption provision, see, e.g., Chamber of Commerce of United States of America v. Whiting, 563 U.S. 582, 592, but state law must also give way to federal law in at least two other circumstances. First, States are precluded from regulating conduct in a field that Congress has determined must be regulated by its exclusive governance. See Gade v. National Solid Wastes Management Assn., 505 U.S. 88, 115. Intent can be inferred from a framework of regulation “so pervasive . . . that Congress left no room for the States to supplement it” or where a “federal interest is so dominant that the federal system will be assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject.” Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U.S. 218, 230. Second, state laws are pre-empted when they conflict with federal law, including when they stand “as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.” Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 67. Pp. 398-400. Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 388 (2012)

The Federal Government holds a decided advantage in this delicate balance: the Supremacy Clause. U.S. Const., Art. VI. As long as it is acting within the powers granted it under the Constitution, Congress may impose its will on the States. Congress may legislate in areas traditionally regulated by the States. This is an extraordinary power in a federalist system. It is a power that we must assume Congress does not exercise lightly. Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 460 (1991)

Thus, while the states maintain operational command over their militias (until called forth, or “federalized,” by Congress), the Congress alone controls the size of the militia, the shape of the militia, the entrance requirements for the militia (save officer appointment), how the militia will be trained, how the militia will be disciplined, and how the militia will be armed.

Once Congress acts in these fields (and it has) then the states are powerless to do anything different.

The key here is nothing about this is a “right of the people.” Because this field is so dominated by Congress there simply is no “right of the people” involved with militia service. Access to firearms while in militia service is best described as a “temporary use permit” controlled by Congress.

This is why the anti-individual RKBA movement wants to limit the RKBA to militia service—so they can bring every aspect of our RKBA under the thumb of government. The problem is they can’t explain how their theory actually works—because it does not. They can’t tell you how it is a “right of the people” when it is limited to the government dominated field of militia service.

The militias used to be reliant on the individual RKBA for their arms. The Constitution gave Congress the power to continue to rely upon the broader individual RKBA as the source of militia arms—or to divorce the militias from these arms (as it has done). The 2nd Amendment merely tells us that Congress was not given the power to destroy this original source of arms, and that it must respect the individual RKBA regardless of whether it chooses to use it to arm the militias.

At least that is my view. Everyone agree or disagree as you see fit.

2/2