Is shall not be infringed supposed to be taken literally?

again-if the proper interpretation of the second amendment is to recognize the pre-existing right of an individual,what did Scalia change it to?

my problem with Scalia is he somehow was afraid to say what I know he knows was true

the commerce clause cannot honestly be read to delegate any federal power of gun control to the federal government


why don't you tell us what you pretend the Second amendment was intended to do

and guess what

saying it was designed to allow the several states to have militias make no sense because NATURAL RIGHTS AS contemplated by the founders-PRE EXIST the formation of government


NONE OF THE FOUNDERS has ever suggested that a Natural right-as guaranteed and recognized by the bill of rights-was conditioned on the existence of a government institution

 

Are you familiar with the 1982 Senate report “The Right To Keep And Bear Arms"?

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/87senrpt.pdf

In 1982 the Senate published a study on the Second Amendment titled “The Right To Keep And Bear Arms. It found: The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms therefore, is a right of the individual citizen to privately possess and carry in a peaceful manner firearms and similar arms. Such an "individual rights" interpretation is in full accord with the history of the right to keep and bear arms, as previously discussed. It is moreover in accord with contemporaneous statements and formulations of the right by such founders of this nation as Thomas Jefferson and Samuel Adams, and accurately reflects the majority of the proposals which led up to the Bill of Rights itself. A number of state constitutions, adopted prior to or contemporaneously with the federal Constitution and Bill of Rights, similarly provided for a right of the people to keep and bear arms. If in fact this language creates a right protecting the states only, there might be a reason for it to be inserted in the federal Constitution but no reason for it to be inserted in state constitutions. State bills of rights necessarily protect only against action by the state, and by definition a state cannot infringe its own rights; to attempt to protect a right belonging to the state by inserting it in a limitation of the state's own powers would create an absurdity. The fact that the contemporaries of the framers did insert these words into several state constitutions would indicate clearly that they viewed the right as belonging to the individual citizen, thereby making it a right which could be infringed either by state or federal government and which must be protected against infringement by both.

The problem with your statement is that the militia clause is a dependent clause and membership in a militia had never been a requirement for gun ownership (10 USC 311 is still on the books, BTW) and NFA 1934 clearly defined the firearms that were allowed to have ownership restricted by the federal government.

 

you seem to be confused as to the lack of government power as covered by the tenth amendment versus the blanket restriction as to weapons that citizens would ordinarily keep and bear.

 

It's in the Bill of Rights.

The intent of the Bill of Rights is clear.

/thread

 

The obvious question of "so what?" must be asked with regard to the above. What difference does it make precisely where the Heller case was situated, when it was going to have a national impact regardless?

Which you cannot actually demonstrate when questioned. You have presented nothing that would amount to proof of what you are claiming.

Then perhaps you should demonstrate clarity in explaining just what the basis of your argument is.

 

Ah, the old "they only had muskets" argument. First place that isn't true. Not only did they had grenades and cannons but they also had multi shot weapons. In fact the founding fathers were fans of such weapons. So if they wanted to exclude such weaponry they would've said so. Secondly they didn't had iPhones back then either yet the first amendment isn't restricted to ink and paper. Besides, I could make a better argument on restricting the first rather than the second as the pen is mightier than the sword.

Such as?

 

See prior post. Where does the 2A say it is the right of an individual?

It says it. Provide for the people to have the right to bear arms for a well regulated militia is necessary for a free state.

It doesn't say anything about state militias. Whether it is a "natural right" is an different issue from what the 2A says.

Where does the Bill of Rights say anything about "natural" rights, whatever that means.

Is it a "natural" right for everyone to have RPGs and shoulder fired anti aircraft missiles?

 

I explained it in my post. By making the 2A depending on whether a weapon is "typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes" Scalia rather inartfully IMO made the 2A dependent upon what is law.

For example, Scalia in Heller scoffed at the idea that the 2A prohibits regulation of machine guns, saying something like of course machine guns can be regulated.

Why? Machine guns are certainly arms. An honest reading of the 2A (once you strip out the well regulated militia part) would be any nutjob has an infringeable right to own machine guns.

But under Scalia's activist re-write, they are not "typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes." OK. Why not? Because they are illegal (with a few exceptions) under federal law! With Scalia's re-write, the Constitution becomes subservient to the law.

So back to the local level. DC had a no handgun law, so obviously handguns could not be "typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes" in DC. You argue that's a local law. So what? When the Constitutional right is subservient to the law, what difference does it make?

Or as a hypothetical, supposed the Federal government passed a law making handguns illegal. Now handguns cannot be "typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes". Where does that leave the 2A as Scalia re-wrote it?

I disagree with your opinion. I believe I have demonstrated it perfectly well.

I disagree with your opinion. I believe I have made it perfectly clear.

 

If the concern as expressed in the 2A was to ensure a well regulated militia, why would it matter whether non-militia members have guns?

The 2A was not designed to restrict guns, but to provide for the people to be armed, for the well regulated militia that is necessary for a free state.

I'm not claiming that the 2A was a gun control law, though presumably as a member of a well regulated militia, the militia could regulate the types of arms the militia members had.

The question isn't what the 2A restricts, but how broad of a right was intended to be provided for the people.

 

For this law to have gone into effect, SCOTUS would have had to ignore Heller to approve it, as it violate the 2A protections offered by Heller. We'd had no rule of law at all at that point if SCOTUS ignores the Bill of Rights.

- - - Updated - - -

The BoR wasn't to provide the rights of the people; it was to restrict the powers of the federal government. Have you read much of the Federalist papers and Anti-federalist responses?

 

this is the typical evasive response we get from people who want to ignore what the founders were intending to do and thus what the founders wanted the Bill of rights to do.

Its dishonest and a waste of time

 

gun banners and other statists want to read the constitution as saying we ONLY have the rights specifically GIVEN us and the government has any power it wants unless that power was both specifically denied and the Courts then affirmed that denial

IN REALITY-the founders intended us to be almost completely free from the federal government which was not intended to regulate private citizens acting in their own sovereign states. and the bill of rights were intended to be complete blanket restrictions on the federal government interfering in areas it was NEVER delegated any power to act in the first place.

- - - Updated - - -

a specious reading. the founders assumed free citizens could and would own arms and this was to make sure the federal government didn't interfere with the right the founders assumed the people all had

 

You aren't surprised, are you?

 

The right to keep and bear arms wasn't reserved for the militias. It was reserved for THE PEOPLE.

As a member of the Texas Air National Guard, I was not allowed to carry a gun anywhere but on my own private property. Did the militia violate my Constitutional rights? Should I have sued?

The 2A is a restriction on the Federal Government from restricting the peoples' gun rights. The Feds have the Constitutional authority to run and secure military installations, courts, etc..., so I am comfortable with the Feds not allowing the public to carry guns in those places, but the Feds have no business controlling the ownership or carrying guns by the people. This is the responsibility of the states and the people as stated in the 10th Amendment.

 

Indeed you did not. You did not even attempt to do such.

How so?

First and foremost, your continual reference to individuals as "nutjobs" is quite derogatory, and shows blatant disregard for honest discussion.

Secondly, machine guns and the like are not illegal. They are heavily restricted in a manner that many would consider unwarranted, but they are not illegal. This claim of yours is blatantly false.

Third, there are far more handguns in legal circulation than there are firearms classified as machine guns. There are tens to hundreds of millions of handguns in legal circulation throughout the united states, meaning they are not only in common use, but are overwhelmingly possessed by the law-abiding for lawful purposes.

Fourth, your comparison between firearms classified as machine guns, and simple handguns, is intellectually dishonest in and of itself. With very few exceptions, the legally registered machine guns in circulation are far larger, heavier, and more cumbersome than handguns, making them less suitable for lawful purposes such as self defense, because they cannot be carried in the same manner. Even if firearms classified as machine guns were not regulated in the manner that they are, they would still not be as suitable as handguns for matters of self defense, because there are locations where one cannot legally carry a firearm in an open manner, and it must be concealed.

Did the district of columbia order those who legally owned handguns to surrender them for destruction, ensuring that absolutely no one would be able to legally possess them?

Would this hypothetical prohibition that you refer to possess what is known as a grandfather provision, ensuring that those who legally possessed handguns prior to its enactment would be allowed to continue possessing them? Or would it state in absolute terms that all handguns had to be surrendered for destruction?

Whether or not you disagree does nothing to change the fact that you have failed to clearly and coherently define not only your position, but also your argument.

 

Only fools can't see that to get a well armed militia you need a well arm people. This is what it meant. Well regulated meant well equipped. The Founders wanted the "people" well armed in case the government later needed a well armed militia.

 

This "words just change meaning crap" in binding contracts, do you take this same approach with your marriage license, the deed on your home and cars, your mortgages or your insurance policies?

 

Everyone is a potential militia-member/minuteman.

In order to quickly form for self defense, one needs to own personal arms. If you find yourself in need of a firearm, it's already too late to go looking for one.

The purpose of the Bill of Rights is clear.

The 2A's inclusion in the Bill of Rights is clear.

It's not complicated at all.

- - - Updated - - -

Is it just me, or is it much nicer in here now?

 

The People ARE the Militia.

 

Scalia compromised a lot. So did the lawyers who represented Heller. That's why the NRA originally opposed the case. The Bush Administration argued that a handgun ban might be consistent with the Second Amendment and was worried that overturning D.C.'s handgun ban was the slippery slope to other federal gun laws being abolished. Scalia decided to rule that D.C.'s handgun ban was unconstitutional but included plenty of analysis in Heller to justify other federal gun laws. So the case was basically a compromise between the two sides. Legal scholar Adam Winkler explains:

"Dick Heller, a white security guard at a federal building in Washington, the Thurgood Marshall Federal Judicial Center, lived across the street from the abandoned housing project. At work, he carried a handgun holstered on his hip to protect the people who worked there. At home, however, D.C. law banned him from possessing a firearm to defend himself from the neighborhood criminals.....

"Heller, in contrast, was an antigovernment ideologue. He liked to say people needed guns not to fight off criminals but to revolt against the U.S. government, which, in his view, was becoming more like Moscow every day. He wanted a gun to fight 'the insanity of it, the overreach of government relegating all of us to second-class citizenship.' The lawyers instructed him to keep a lid on the antigovernment stuff and stay on message. 'They almost wrote it down for me: "I just want to defend my own life in my own home." ' He wasn’t the ideal plaintiff, but now he was all they had.108....

"The NRA was still dead set against Gura’s bringing his Second Amendment case to the Supreme Court, and the flameout of its own lawsuit would hardly be enough to stop one of the most powerful interest groups in America. In the new NRA, compromise was not an option.109....

"When Alan Gura first heard that the solicitor general planned to share the administration’s views with the justices, he had every reason to be thankful. George W. Bush was the most pro-gun president in decades. Bush had run for office as a strong defender of gun rights, and it was his former attorney general, John Ashcroft, who had announced that the administration officially subscribed to the individual-rights view of the Second Amendment. That’s why Gura was shocked to read Paul Clement’s brief, which advised the justices to partially reverse Gura’s victory in the lower court. While Clement’s brief endorsed the individual-rights reading, it also argued that D.C.’s law might be a reasonable regulation consistent with the demands of the Second Amendment....

"When Gura read Clement’s brief, he was dumbfounded. The president was considered a strong supporter of gun rights, yet the solicitor general’s brief, in Gura’s view, 'advocated for a meaningless individual right.' The administration recognized a right to bear arms, but it was one that was to be governed by a standard 'so lenient that even this law, which is the worst in the country by far' might survive. If a complete ban on handguns and effective prohibition on the use of all other firearms for self-defense by civilians were permitted, then no gun control would run afoul of the Second Amendment. Clement, Gura said, was 'basically siding with the District of Columbia.'8....

"The primary responsibility of the executive branch is to enforce the law. A broad Second Amendment ruling could undermine the vast array of federal gun control laws that prosecutors were using routinely to put criminals in jail....

"THE FEDERAL gun control laws that Paul Clement and the Bush administration were worried about had their roots in the 1930s. That’s when the federal government first involved itself seriously in the business of regulating guns."
https://books.google.com/books?id=o...frontcover&source=gbs_atb#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

What was the purpose of selecting this specific thread to respond to, when the last post was nearly a year ago? There are more than enough threads that are currently active to warrant discussion.