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

There is nothing personal to be had in this matter. It is just being noted that nearly every individual participating in this discussion is disagreeing with your message in its entirety. It is yourself, and your position, that is the outlier in this matter.

 

the SCOTUS are chosen for their legal expertise.

they have the authority to decide which laws are legal/Constitutional and which ones are not.

if you reject this basic premise, you reject our Constitution.

 

Many of the Founding Fathers accepted the notion of judicial review; in Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton wrote: "A Constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute."

The Supreme Court firmly established its power to declare laws unconstitutional in Marbury v. Madison (1803), consummating the American system of checks and balances. In explaining the power of judicial review, Chief Justice John Marshall stated that the authority to interpret the law was the particular province of the courts, part of the duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. His contention was not that the Court had privileged insight into constitutional requirements, but that it was the constitutional duty of the judiciary, as well as the other branches of government, to read and obey the dictates of the Constitution

 

I reject that SCOTUS are chosen for their legal expertise. They are chosen by a sitting President for their political views.

If you feel that SCOTUS has the authority to decide that a right is no longer a right, then you believe that we don't actually have rights at all.

 

Marbury vs Madison isn't without its controversy.

 

the SCOTUS determined that you do not have the right to own slaves.

this was not the case prior to the Civil War.

 

We are not discussing matters pertaining to laws. We are discussing matters pertaining to constitutional rights, and the inability of government to declare that a constitutional right is not a constitutional right. The united state supreme court declared that a total prohibition on an entire class of firearms is unconstitutional. they have ruled that the second amendment applies to all legal uses of firearms, not simply militia duties. Neither the legislative nor the executive branch of the federal government has the authority to overrule this matter.

None of which actually states that the federal government has the authority to determine that a constitutional right, specifically spelled out in the bill of rights, is not a constitutional right, and thus no longer applies.

 

the Supreme Court is the final arbiter in what is and is not, Constitutional.

 

Was the right to own slaves enumerated as a right?

 

the right to keep and bear arms outside the context of Militia service was never mentioned in the USC

thats why there have been soo many court cases regarding guns.

 

Then show where the united state supreme court has ever determined that a constitutional right, specifically spelled out in the bill of rights, ceased to actually be a constitutional right, and no longer applied against the federal government. Show where it was even suggested that such a course of action was legally possible.

 

Please, there are about 4 people in the discussion and there are all kinds of laws limiting the purchase of firearms.

 

And of them, precisely how many have indicated that they agree with the statements being presented by yourself? How many have built upon the arguments presented by yourself, rather than tearing them down on the basis of being devoid of sound logic?

 

Supreme Court has made it clear that certain individuals in the USA do not have the right to keep & bear arms.

 

How many out of 4? Ha ha.

 

Absolutely.

 

Was that determination made after due process with regards to a crime or adjudicated mental condition, limited to that person in question?

Gun bans are sweeping legislation not due to the crimes of the persons prohibited.

See the difference?

 

Minors do not have a Constitutionally protected right to Keep & Bear Arms.

Those in prison or jail do not have a Constitutionally protected right to Keep & Bear Arms.

Those who have been declared mentally defective or had been instutionallized, do not have a Constitutionally protected right to Keep & Bear Arms.

The Right to Bear Arms at sensitive locations, such as hospitals, courthouses and other public buildings can be limited to law enforcent officials.

See? The right to possess a gun is not without its limits.

 

As Scalia himself noted, “the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.”

 

nope, Congress has no more power to tell me what sort of guns I can own than it does to tell me what sort of clothes I have to wear when I am not on active duty

 

OK that's all well and good but it doesn't even address the issue I raised

 

Which does not, by any measure, translate into saying that the rights protected by the second amendment is next to nonexistent.

Nor are minors allowed to enter into legally binding contracts. However the above proves nothing regarding the validity of the initial claim.

Because they were provided due process under the law.

Again, due process.

Which ultimately means nothing. The holders of private property are allowed to set limitations on the use of said property. That is why individuals can be arrested for the act of trespassing. They are allowed to be on the property at the sole discretion of the owner of said property, and can be forced to leave at any time, for any reason, or even no reason whatsoever.

Such is not a blank check for government to implement any restriction it wishes to, based solely on the fact that they want to implement such.

 

So is "keep arms" a military term as well?

More to the point, they were horrible communicators if they meant to protect a right unconnected to self-defense of private citizens in peacetime.

Then perhaps you'd like to tell me why Congress can't regulate the content of publications sold across state lines.

I don't suppose it occurs to you that if that's true of federal statutes, it's even more true of court rulings.

BTW, in constitutional debates, wiki cliff notes are for losers.

So the way you figure it, the supremacy clause is null and void. Pretty much got that bang on, haven't I?

 

that's the difference between patriots and lefties. Patriots are always demanding that lefties explain why how government has the power to limit our rights. Lefties are always trying to expand those limitations

 

no, since the SCOTUS decides the meaning of Constitutional clauses.