What Exactly Were Our Founding Fathers' Intention With The "Right To Bear Arms"???

Supreme Court precedent

Repeatedly proven false

 

The supreme law of the land of a State can not be false if it is not expressly repugnant to our federal Constitution.

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

 

Yet California has strict gun laws and high crime rates. So much for defending life and obtaining safety.

Many laws have been passed by states have been obviously unconstitutional but politicians can turn a blind eye. Federal law triumphs state law because that is how the federal system works. Either way, what does this have to do with the second amendment anyway?

 

I am not sure what you mean. Since when have those Arms which are Traditionally used for self-defence of civil Persons who are specifically unconnected with Militia service, well regulated, been banned?

 

The second amendment supersedes state constitutions.

You remain refuted

- - - Updated - - -

Banned in California, previously banned in dc and Chicago. Supreme Court precedent rectified that and clarified the meaning of the second amendment.

 

Conceal carry in Chicago has been banned, Certain firearms in NYC have been confiscated and even then I never said banned. Many reports state that California's conceal carry permits are more difficult to acquire than many other states and its limitation of detachable magazines and 30 round magazines have done little to slow the crime rate, in fact they have increased.

In any case, what would you consider arms for those "specifically unconnected with Militia service, well regulated..."?

 

That is not what I asked; those Arms you may complain about not having access to, is only due to a lack of wellness of regulation on the part of gun "enthusiasts".

The Militia of the United States, well regulated, may not be Infringed in its keeping and bearing of Arms for their State or the Union.

A better question is, why should civil Persons who are specifically unconnected with well regulated militia service, ask for an exemption from State laws, by civil authorities, for civil Persons who are specifically unconnected with militia service, well regulated.

 

Repeatedly proven false

 

Not withtout a valid argument.

The Militia of the United States, well regulated, may not be Infringed in its keeping and bearing of Arms for their State or the Union.

A better question is, why should civil Persons who are specifically unconnected with well regulated militia service, ask for an exemption from State laws, by civil authorities, for civil Persons who are specifically unconnected with militia service, well regulated.

 

Why do you keep feeding the troll? Gun control has failed to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals even where it is the most strict. Its not the laws, nor the regulations, it is the willingness of criminals to do what it takes to get guns. Even if we took all of the guns away from law abiding citizens criminals would still have over 100 million guns to choose from and easy points of access to renew their inventory.

But the fact is the US Constitution as amended gives law abiding US citizens an in-infringeable right to possess and carry firearms without any recourse to a militia of any kind. The fact is the US Supreme court has held that to be true. We need no exemptions, we need no special permission, it is our inalienable right which can be abridged only by exceptions to the kind of arm and the locations to which we can carry those arms.

Beyond that, state laws and constitutions cannot trump the US Constitution, and it matters not one whit if state constitutions word their code exactly the same or by using different and synonymous words.

The continuous trolling of some kind of militia being involved in individual rights is hog wash. The second amendment did not tie the right to keep and bear to the militia, it tied the militia to the "shall not be infringed;" thus the militia shall not be infringed and the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. His trollness trolls for no other reason to bait others while shopping for insults to get others infracted.

 

What part of this specific enumeration in our supreme law of the land, vests rights in private property for civil Persons who are specifically unconnected with militia service, well regulated:

 

That part of the 2nd amendment which guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms without infringement, as held by the SCOTUS relying on court precedents and their own reasoning.

SCOTUS Held IN HELLER V DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA::

1. 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. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause, "A WELL REGULATED MILITIA," announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause."THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS," The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment . Pp. 28–30. Which shoots down all your attempts to blur the situation by calling on state constitutions.

(d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , 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.

 

I will bet you money, that in spite of the fact you have posted unequivocal and absolute proofs that he will come back and deny it says what it says. Not being the brightest bulb on the block is not his strong suit.

This statement take from Heller v DC tells the whole story and belies his comment that the USSC made the decision without precedents . Just wait for it!

 

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the People to bear arms, shall not be infringed." Notice the commas, they are vital and without them, have obscured your view of the amendment. Modern English grammar does not apply in regards to the writing of the constitution because it was not founded yet. It states why a militia is needed, and it states that the people have the right to bear arms. The People, and the militia are not the same thing.

 

Then, it is a simple reading comprehension issue on the part of those of your point of view simply because, only one Thing is enumerated as necessary to the security of a free State.

Thus, "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State" must have some meaning and must be made to conspire to some Common End.

 

You are doing that yourself as I posted what the laws and the amendment really say and what the SCOTUS say they mean.

As is said above, the prefactory clause, "a well regulated militia" does in fact announce a purpose, but it does not limit the operative clause "the right of the people to keep and bear arms without infringement."

Yes, there are rules of construction, something with which you seem not to understand and are unwilling to accept even when it is spelled out for you in detail based on the holding of the SCOTUS. What you obviously do not understand is, THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE are more important than the militia being necessary to the security of a free state.

And yes, the SCOTUS should not have had to interpret anything as the 2nd amendment is abundently clear to be there to guarantee the rights of the people to keep and bear (possess and carry) arms but some people simply will not accept what it says it says without argument, as witnessed by your constant argument. It does not render any part of the 2nd amendment null and void, as the entire amendment is the codification of 2 issues, that being a well regulated militia, and the rights of the people.

So yes, a "well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" does have meaning as does "the rights of the people to keep and bear arms" also has meaning and is the operative clause. So no matter how many times you challenge the SCOTUS on what it has held, or those of us who do understand the SCOTUS HOLDING, you will invariably be wrong.

Answered above, that is if you can read and understand English.

 

"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State" must have some meaning and must be made to conspire to some Common End. Any questions?

 

Actually it is your reading incomprehension and the SCOTUS clearly told you so in so many words.

It does, it supports the operative clause about THE PEOPLE HAVING THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, but as the Court so eloquently said, in that support it does not limit the operative clause.

 

It does have meaning, and the two issues, the right of the people to keep and bear arms AND the militia both combine to the common end of securing our free state. Nothing in the amendment infers that there must be a militia for people to have the right to keep and bear arms, only that both of the issues are necessary to the security of the free state and of the two, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is the most important part.

So no, I have no questions. When do you believe you are going to accept that the people on this thread and the SCOTUS have all held that you are wrong?

 

He will never capitulate to truth and facts.

- - - Updated - - -

He will never accept. It is not in his nature.

Goodbye all. I am moving on to a forum which eliminates trolls.

 

supreme court precedent is a valid argument.

repeatedly proven false.

- - - Updated - - -

second amendment.

- - - Updated - - -

repeatedly proven false.

 

Only by ignoring the first clause.

It must limit the operative clause to that which is necessary to the security of a free State.

- - - Updated - - -

Both clauses appear in the same sentence.

Why omit the common end and claim it doesn't have any bearing on the second clause?

 

Of course I will; you merely need a better argument that doesn't resort to more fallacies.

 

It does have meaning, but it does not limit the operative clause which is "the people have the right to keep and bear arms."

- - - Updated - - -

Of course it is.

 

No, the first clause has value, we do not ignore it but it does not limit the operative clause, "the people have the right"

No, it must not limit. That is what the SCOTUS said.

Yes!

We don't omit the prefactory clause, but it does not have any bearing on the right to keep and bear arms.

- - - Updated - - -

There can be no better argument than showing you in print that the SCOTUS held that you are wrong. The only fallacy is that you choose to ignore the Supreme court.