2nd Amendment: Has it changed since 1789?

You are buying into the left's crap. When the Supreme Court hears a case - in this instance, a gun case, many people might be filing Amicus Curiae briefs. The Supreme Court can then consider ANY case therein and their rulings may over-rule existing precedents... even if they are not the defendant's argument. For example, the Supreme Court could have ruled that cases like Nunn v. Georgia and the Cockrum decision were wholly wrong, which would have over-ruled that theory of law. Those lower court cases are binding in their respective states and persuasive authority in other states and higher courts.

Instead, the Supreme Court upheld existing precedent made by lower courts. In reality, both you and danielpalos know that the Bill of Rights is a limitation on government. You might not want to admit it, but you do realize it would be wholly inconsistent for the Second Amendment to be about protecting a militia's right to keep and bear Arms unless the whole people constitute the militia. If that be the case, then you have to be honest and accept the objective of the Second Amendment:

“The great objective is that every man be armed … . Everyone who is able may have a gun.” Patrick Henry

If there were ever any doubt, there are literally thousands of quotes from the founding fathers that destroy all the gun control arguments. Here is one of my favorites:

“Resistance to sudden violence, for the preservation not only of my person, my limbs, and life, but of my property, is an indisputable right of nature which I have never surrendered to the public by the compact of society, and which perhaps, I could not surrender if I would.” 49

“Here, every private person is authorized to arm himself, and on the strength of this authority, I do not deny the inhabitants had a right to arm themselves at that time, for their defense, not for offense…” John Adams, Second President of the United States.

 

The great thing about the Constitution is that you can't read your personal opinion into it.

Of course you can and you have done exactly that as has Scalia.

There's no getting around "A well regulated militia being necessary..." You may find something in the 10th that supports gun "rights' or you may not...but the 2nd clearly is not that

And quoting a Texas District Court ruling to claim Constitutional protection doesn't cut it

 

Poorly litigated court rulings are all you have to offer.

 

No, I most assuredly have not interjected my personal opinion into the words of the founding fathers. Thomas Jefferson advised us on how to interpret the Constitution. He said:

“On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit of the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”

Lesh, you would by lying to yourself as well as others if you looked at my posts and did not see that I did exactly as Jefferson instructed. I've went back to that time period and extracted statements from the Debates, Federalist Papers, etc. What has your side done?

 

Standing precedents are what I offer... along with the words of the founding fathers themselves on what the correct interpretation of the Constitution is. ALL you offer is your own personal opinion not substantiated by any court ruling or document from the founding fathers as to the construction or interpretation of the Right to keep and bear Arms.

 

As do you - see below.

And no one has.

You continue to choose to be wrong.

 

That's interesting...because at tht time the Founding Fathers were deathly afraid of a standing Army . They included the 2nd amendment in order to NOT have a large standing Army and they subsequently USED it as an Army in putting down various insurrections (which gun nuts claim the 2nd would ENABLE)

 

An armed populace, as the founders intended, does enable the people overthrow the government, should the need arise.
You know- like 1775-1873.

 

Section 32 of the Indiana State Constitution:

"The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State"

Notice no requirement to belong to a militia.

 

I would ask what you were on when you typed that, but that's too obvious. A standing army is NOT the same thing as a well armed citizenry. You already knew that.

 

This Is standing precedent: Only well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; not, the unorganized militia.

Can you show where the Supreme Court, said differently.

 

How many times do I have to do so before you read the freaking cases? Your opinion is not a legal precedent. Neither are those empty words you put into that post. Courts interpret the law. Their interpretations constitute what the law IS. Legal scholars have penned possibly millions of words explaining why you are wrong and what can happen:

"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both." [William Rawle, A View of the Constitution 125-6 (2nd ed. 1829)


"The provision in the Constitution granting the right to all persons to bear arms is a limitation upon the power of the Legislature to enact any law to the contrary. The exercise of a right guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be made subject to the will of the sheriff." [People vs. Zerillo, 219 Mich. 635, 189 N.W. 927, at 928 (1922)]

"The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions." [State vs. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222, at 224 (1921)]

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and 'is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." [Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)]

And one more time. This is what the United States Supreme Court said:

"The right of bearing arms for a lawful purpose is not a right granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.” ~ U.S. vs Cruikshank

1) The United States Supreme Court states that the Right to keep and bear Arms is not a right granted by the Constitution

2) They said neither is "it" dependent upon that instrument (meaning the Constitution) for its existence.

What "it" are they talking about? Go back one sentence. Is the "it" about the Second Amendment?

Hell NO, it's not. The Right is that of a right of bearing arms for a lawful purpose.

Who was on trial? The militia? No. The government? No. A private citizen was on trial. So, it was a citizen's Right to keep and bear Arms.

I hate to tell you this, son, but you lost this argument a long time ago. You've asked for a United States Supreme Court decision. Now you've got one. You've been given cites to the intent of the founding fathers; standing precedents from lower courts (that constitute law unless the law is changed OR a higher court over-rules the lower courts.) You have not cited ANYTHING in defense of your position... not one relevant court case, nothing from the Debates of the founding fathers, not anything from a founding father that would suggest that your position is correct.

Today I received several likes from posters that aren't the usual suspects. So, I can thank you for their words that they never heard of some of this before. But, I'm beginning to feel sorry for you. You play this song and dance every day as if your were a disciple of Hitler (you know, tell a lie often enough...)

 

It may be a mistrial if it was adjudicated by mistake on natural rights principles and applied to our Second Amendment. Our Second Amendment is not about natural rights.

 

I'm giving you some fatherly advice. If 99 out of 100 people tell you got something wrong, you might want to rethink your position.

Natural Rights, God given Rights, unalienable Rights - whatever term is more acceptable to you are a foundational principle upon which America was founded.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." (an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence)

There, in one sentence is the most important foundational principle that we can rely on. We have Rights that are unalienable. That means we cannot give them up, nobody else has a Right to take them away from us, they can't be bought nor sold; traded nor denied. That is the whole concept of being an unalienable Right.

So important is the Declaration of Independence to our laws that it appears at the head of the United States Code (the official laws of the United States.) Thomas Jefferson said that the Declaration of Independence is the "foundational Charter of the Rights of man."

Now, with respect to the Bill of Rights, the Bill of Rights Institute has this to say:

"One of the many points of contention between Federalists and Anti-Federalists was the Constitution’s lack of a bill of rights that would place specific limits on government power. Federalists argued that the Constitution did not need a bill of rights, because the people and the states kept any powers not given to the federal government. Anti-Federalists held that a bill of rights was necessary to safeguard individual liberty."

http://billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/bill-of-rights/

The problem you have, as I see it is threefold:

1) The Bill of Rights is the codification of the principles found in the Declaration of Independence

2) The Bill of Rights is a limitation on the powers of government and the protection of the unalienable Rights of individuals. You could not make a case where ANY other Amendment in the Bill of Rights empowers government. So, on that count, you have a problem with consistency

3) James Madison, the author of the Bill of Rights (which is inclusive of the Second Amendment) had this to say:

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

"the ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone ...To these (federal troops attempting to impose tyranny) would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands."

(James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 )

"They [proposed Bill of Rights] relate 1st. to private rights....the great object in view is to limit and qualify the powers of government..." 8 June 1789 (The Papers of James Madison, Hobson & Rutland, 12:193, 204)

“As a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.”


"And on the distinctive principles of the Government of our own State, and of that of the United States, the best guides are to be found in –1. The Declaration of Independence as the fundamental act of Union of these States."

danielpalos, it would appear to me that you are arguing with the author of the Second Amendment. Your argument is certainly not with me.

 

"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."

Nope, no changes, the Second Amendment is still the same as it always was, it has been reaffirmed by shall issue concealed carry in almost every State as well as a growing number of Constitutional gun Rights States.

 

A well regulated Militia, being necessary...

 

Admittedly I have not read this thread, it can get too crazy. One has to remember the times and the situation the framers of the constitution lived under, completely different times that most Americans are not familiar with. The revolution in the 13 colonies was won however Great Britain won the world war that was raging at the same time. The dates are important - Yorktown was 1781 (could not have been won without the French), the treaty was signed in 1783 and the constitution wasn't written until 1787 with the first election following in 1788. Since the prospect of having, and paying for, a national army was about zero, an armed militia was necessary for the defense of the new nation, the rational for the 2nd amendment. There was still the prospect of trouble; Great Britain and Spain controlled large tracts of North America, France was still in the area and Russia was in Alaska and sniffing down the west coast......it's not surprising a fledgling new nation might be a wee bit wary. I guess what I'm saying is the founders weren't so much worried about a "domestic tyrannical government" as they were the possible intrusions by a European power who happened to be in the neighborhood. Seriously, what group of people write an amendment advocating armed insurrection against themselves....it's laughable.

 

...the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

"Well Regulated" has several meanings. The FF didn't write the 2A to give the government power to take the rights of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms. If that's the case, why was I not allowed to carry a gun on base when I was in the Texas Air National Guard? After all, I was a PERSON in the "well regulated" militia. By your interpretation of the 2A, I should have been able to carry a gun just lke a cop.

 

You don't sound too well versed in American history. Our forefathers fled the oppression of their native countries and knew all too well the dangers of a government that had the power to take total control over the people.

So, one hand, we've never been invaded by a foreign country and, on the other we have not had internal wars to the extent that other countries have (the "Civil War" being the only time Americans fought each other.)

Even though the North and the South fought a long and hard fight, they did not take civilians hostage and make it common practice to kill women and children.

 

dear, Case law is for "functionaries of the State", not Persons of the People "calling" our Representatives to Government, on the social Contract ratified by the People.

You need a supreme law of the land, especially in a superior court, when dealing with such "dilemmas".

- - - Updated - - -

Natural rights are not found in our Second Article of Amendment. It really is that simple, except to the right.

- - - Updated - - -

thanks; but, i already have a rebuttal to that argument. I try to be the one in a thousand rather than appeal to the masses like the nine hundred and ninety-nine.

- - - Updated - - -

Only well regulated Militia of the People are exempted from State laws regarding gun control, meant for the unorganized militia of the People.

- - - Updated - - -

which People? you are either, well regulated militia of the People or not. Our Second Amendment expressly declares well regulated militia of the People to be Necessary, not the unorganized, militia of the People.

 

Our Civil War proves, by that fixed and historical precedent; that Only well regulated militias of the several United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union. Not even well regulated militias of the South, may Infringe upon them.

 

I have been in both militias and I was never allowed to bear arms when I was a member of the official state militia. It was specifically banned on base, even if I'd had a CHL at that time. Either your interpretation is all screwed up or my rights were violated. Which is it? Which other amendment protects the government's rights?

 

Well regulated militia don't need State permits for Arms due gun control measures enacted by your own, State legislature. Unorganized militia are subject to State laws regarding gun control meant for the unorganized militia, as "civilians" and "gun lovers".

The point being, that a tank crew, a bazookanier, and an artillery crew do not need a State permit for driving that tank, keeping and Bearing a bazooka, and hauling their artillery, when called to Arms, for their State or the Union.

 

Two things, the Military is independent of anything Civilian, the Civilian Police have ZERO Authority on Military bases, so Civilians even less, even the regular Military have limits on the carry of Arms, hence the shooting.

One thing is indeed clear, the Second Amendment has two independent clauses, Regardless of what meaning they want to give the Militia part, the second part, The Right of the People to keep and Bear Arms shall not be infringed.

Carries more weight than people think, and slowly is being affirmed more and more, the lack of people carrying is more conducive to problems than not, a CCW is proof positive that someone is Law Abiding, than someone that does not carry, this was really evident in NYC surprisingly enough as Anti Gun NYC is, if you have any gun license, they know you are certainly not a criminal.

 

there must be some sort of weapons qualification for well regulated militia, to keep and bear Arms, whenever it should be necessary and proper.