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

Their opinion, like yours, runs contrary to established law.
Thus, it is irrelevant.

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home; it does not matter one whit how much you or someone else may disagree.

 

"It is a natural right for people to be able to protect themselves, their homes and their families. A nation also shall be able to call upon its citizenry in times of crisis to defend the nation from all enemies, foreign & domestic. Therefore the right to Keep & Bear Arms shall not be infringed."



^^^^ thats what the 2nd Amendment would have looked like if the OP was correct.

 

Interesting theory. Now support it. Explain what the 2nd protects given the complete power to control the arms of the militia granted to the Congress in Article 1 Section 8.

Explain why states who felt the individual right to keep and bear arms was so important that they included it in their state constitutions would give up that protection to the federal government via a document whose entire purpose was to limit the power of the federal government.

 

the original Constitution allows Congress to arm the military and state militias.

but it did not speak to the arming of the UNregulated militia, which is all able-bodied men aged 18-45.

this is what the 2nd Amendment addresses.

 

There was no unregulated militia post 1792. According to the 1792Militia Acts, the state militias consisted of "all able-bodied men aged 18-45", excepting a few professions, and in accordance with Article 1, Section 8 they decreed the arming of the militia as "every citizen, so enrolled and notified", "...shall within six months thereafter, provide himself..." with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, ¼ pound of gunpowder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack.

The concept of "unorganized militia" came into being with the Militia Act of 1903.

 

ok, so the 2nd Amendment provided for the arming of the State Regulated Militia.

 

Have you read the Militia Acts of 1792? The arming requirements of the state militias were determined by Congress in accordance with Article 1 Section 8. The 2nd Amendment protects the right of the People, militia or not, to keep and bear arms.

 

Tom,


If you and Justice Stevens are correct, and the Amendment only recognizes the RKBA as a militia member in militia service, then tell me how it works?


Article I Section 8 says Congress has the power “To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia.”



The Article VI supremacy clause makes this power absolute.



Congress has the total control over the organization of the militia. It sets the size as large or as small as it wants. It sets the entrance requirements, and can forbid me from being a militia member if it wants to. The only way I can join a militia without Congress’ consent is if the state uses its reserved power to appoint me as an officer. Either way my ability to participate is not my right but a grant of permission from a government.



And if Congress suffers me to be a militia member, then Congress still has all power over militia arms. Congress can say what, if any arms I might be allowed to have, for how long I will be allowed to have them, and for what purposes I will be allowed to have them as a militia member.



In short, I have no right to be a militia member—I need permission from Congress; and I have no right to have any firearm—again I need permission from Congress (assuming it lets me in the club).



Tell me how this is a “right of the people”?



When the 1st, 2nd, and 4th Amendments all use the same phrase “the right of the people,” how can this one phrase mean individual rights in the 1st, a government permission needed privilege in the 2nd, and an individual right in the 4th?



And don’t bother checking either dissent in Heller. Stevens, Souter, Ginsberg, and Breyer—they all pretend this issue does not exist. They refuse to even address it. The majority did, and all the dissent did was say “these aren’t the droids you are looking for.”



They are so busy trying to twist the Amendment into something that denies an individual RKBA that they have failed to acknowledge they have created an Amendment that does nothing—that can do nothing—unless Congress first allows it.



No one can tell you how your interpretation of the RKBA works.



I bet you can’t do it either.

 

Seems the founders answered your question pretty clearly.

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.

What else could have been meant by the inclusion of the bolded language in the 2A, except that it was thought that the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" was important to a "well regulated militia" that is "necessary to the security of a free State"

 

Well not exactly States generally had the Militias and Congress could call them up requesting States send them for Federal duty, which was done in all wars up to the Civil War when some States opted to refuse such as Virginia but when Federalized they were funded and trained by the Federal Government for such service. States also had control outside of this and used Militia often for the role we have the National Guard for disaster relief and keeping the peace. If one reads the US Constitution the only armed forces explicitly Federal is the Navy (by default the Marines as a brother service) and perhaps troops in Territories not being States. The Coast Guard and Air Force isn't mentioned at all.

However its a mute point we have a powerful standing army and other forces we don't need State Militias although some still have them so I feel fine is stating maybe rewriting the 2nd Amendment needs to be done to correct this and allow for a standing Federal force and we could eliminate the National Guard and Militias for a right to approved gun ownership under later to be made Federal Laws to restrict weapons of no value for hunting in the public hands, and make using them a Federal Felony allowing for the banning and confiscation of such weapons and asset forfeiture. No prison time unless selling illegal weapons. If it was up to me.

 

if the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to arm the public so they could repel intruders and criminals, and not to arm the state militia, why didn't they just say so??????

 

the 2nd Amendment gave citizens the right to keep and bear arms during time of war.

the 1792 Militia Act REQUIRED Americans to arm themselves.

 

I think the 2nd is clear.

(1) It gives the citizens and the states the right to form a militia. A "militia" is a non-professional citizen force. And,
(2) It guarantees the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms.

For #1 to be feasible, #2 has to exist. But #2 is not dependent on the existence of #1.

 

The purpose of the second amendment was to prevent the federal government from gaining the authority to disarm the public itself.

 

funny, as "the militia", as mentioned in the 2nd Amendment, is under Federal control if they call for it.

 

Not funny - that's specifically called for. Has nothing to do with the individual right to keep and bear arms.

 

except that idiocy has been destroyed by the court and scholarship. Back then everyone who was male was essentially in the militia. TO claim that you had to be a member of what is now a federally run body is idiotic. Gun banners try to pretend that when any honest understanding of the second amendment and the bill of rights holds that

1) the right pre-existed the formation of government Requiring membership in a government controlled entity for the right to vest completely runs counter to that

2) the bill of rights was designed to limit government power-not give it more

3) you cannot have an effective militia is the private citizens who join it have no arms before the call up goes out

 

thats idiotic. any weapon a civilian police officer can use, private civilians ought to be able to freely buy and use in a lawful manner. I would advocate any government that tries to confiscate weapons that have been lawfully owned and used prior, is a rogue government that people should resist and see those who push such laws as enemies of the constitution

 

only one flaw in that-it didn't "GIVE" anything I recognized what we already had and which the federal government was NEVER given any proper power to regulate

 

None of which amounts to anything of actual significance. The second amendment specifies the right of the people, not the right of the militia, not the right of the federal government. Firearms ownership was never made contingent upon service in the militia. Rather it was the militia that was made contingent upon firearms ownership.

 

Perhaps "give" wasn't the best choice of words. But it did "codify" the right into our Constitution. How about that?

 

http://davekopel.org/2A/Mags/Collective-Right.html


Everyone knows the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right. Instead, it establishes a collective right, which cannot be legally asserted by an individual. The only people who claim the Second Amendment protects an individual right are deluded �gun nuts� who are ignorant of the original intent of the Second Amendment, and of the Supreme Court�s past rulings.

Yet that view was entirely wrong, according to the unanimous Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller(200. How did such a foolish and obviously incorrect view of a constitutional right become so popular among America�s opinion elite?

 

And that guy wrote this book:
"The Morality of Self-Defense and Military Action: The Judeo-Christian Tradition
by David B. Kopel (Author)"

No, I didn't make that up.

 

Is there a reason a bolt action rifle or pump action shotgun can't be used for home defense? Just pump loading the latter will scare a possible intruder before they try to come in who may have a pistol. I know I own one for that reason. And its a hunting weapon vital if hunting some animals, read bears. And I think weapons in the arms of the police should be military issues with body armor to make the scary to consider shooting at unless in some roles such as undercover or desk officers. And Swat Officers should even better with military vehicles if needed.

 

is there a reason why civilian cops are equipped with semi automatic 18 shot handguns and select fire carbines? do you think the lives of private citizens are worth less? why do you want to handicap honest citizens? criminals violate the law by having any firearm. If they are willing to break that law, do you think they are going to engage in violent crime armed with a bolt action rifle? you obviously have almost no experience in this area. Maybe you think Joe Biden was right-buy a double barrel shotgun and if you think someone is breaking into your home, go to the porch and fire two shots in the air

that is the same advice you are giving.