IS the term "The People" in the second amendment different

than "the People" in the First, Fourth and Ninth amendments? I say no but those who still cling to the discredited "collective right" nonsense (which is nonsensical not only because states have Powers not rights) want us to believe that the Founders had two versions of "the People"/ they claim in the second "the people" is really the states but in the First , Fourth and Ninth "the People" refer to individuals who have rights. And of course in the Tenth, the founders were careful to separate the two :
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Yet the Gun banners claim that while writing the second, the authors somehow saw "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" really means the STATE.

More evidence that the outcome based bullshit scholarship of the gun banning left makes no sense whatsoever

 

I have to go with what SCOTUS said in US v Verdugo-Urquidez in 1990:


"While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that "the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community. See United States ex rel. Turner v. Williams, 194 U.S. 279, 292, 24 S.Ct. 719, 723, 48 L.Ed. 979 (1904)"

 

I guess all of the gun control fans who pretend the second amendment only protects state power, are unable to deal with the fact that in the first, fourth and ninth amendment, the people refers to individual rights: or that in the tenth the states and the people are distinct entities

 

These people lie to themselves, and subsequently, to you.
/ Thread

 

Yep, but I was hoping the two posters who pretend to understand constitutional law better than I do would take a swing at this.

 

Well, if we take The Constitution as written and intended by the Founders, only property owning white males would be considered, "the People".

 

many people confuse the scope of the right with coverage. the scope has always been the same-the fourteenth amendment expanded the coverage.

 

There's some merit to this.

 

We wouldn't be electing morons anymore.

 

I read a report that if only those who owned land (men AND women), Hilary clinton would have only won the states of Washington and Oregon and the D of C. She lost california, NY, Mass, NJ, Illinois etc to Trump among landowners.

 

It's super easy to win the welfare vote.... All you have to do is promise them free stuff.

It turns out the tax paying landowners tend to be not democratic

 

I'd change that to Democrats

 

Oh, contraire - If ONLY the rich were able to vote, we would be electing idiot puppets that would do the riches every bidding. Since the Supreme Court
handed unlimited funding limits to the rich for Dark Money in politics, we have seen a steep drop in the quality of candidates.

 

I don't see any connection whatsoever.

 

The Constitution, not the Supreme Court, handed unliited funding limits.

 

I say who gives a damn what the framers intended, and I'm going to tell you why, because they sure as hell didn't include 'blacks', 'women' and 'Indians' as 'the people', so whatever the hell they meant, it matters not but only for a future court to do whatever the hell they fancy, according to the winds of time at the time.

It won't be a right wing court forever, and a 5/4 party line vote, RECENT vote (Heller) does not a strong precedent make.

 

ah the discredited attempt to attack the SCOPE of the right by the original COVERAGE of the right. when I see this level of fervor against the second amendment as an individual right, it's obvious that the hatred is not about those who break the law but about loathing those who exercise the right as intended

 

I'll file that in the wishful thinking to forward a right wing agenda file.

In the meantime,

I see nothing in your argument that negates mine.

Comment stands.

 

your argument has no merit and here is why

and it's a tired argument that suggests that because the second amendment originally did not apply to certain groups-be it slaves "papists", native Americans, that means the SCOPE OF THE RIGHT is now somehow limited when applied to white Americans and other citizens

it's as silly as claiming that since some of those who enacted the second were slave owners, that somehow rolls back the negative restriction on the government

so tell us this-what was the scope of the coverage when it was limited to say white protestant adult males and why is it now diminished now that it applies to all lawful citizens of age?

you saw what happened to the GOP in the 2022 midterms because of Dodd. what do you think would happen to the dems if a bunch of statist judges pretended that the second amendment didn't apply to individuals

 

The original intent, meaning, and purpose of 2A was to ensure a well-regulated group of men/people/persons were able to defend the State (or the local people). Art1 Sec8 also gives power to Congress to call upon that militia and deal with riots. Congress also has power to organize, arm, and discipline that militia. The 2A is only for 'being necessary to the security of a free state' which is the most overlooked part. For your argument about people vs person, many just use 'Person' (4th uses it twice and 6A uses 'accused'), and some none at all. Using your reasoning, why wouldn't they say 'the right of the person to keep and bear arms?'

Anyway, gun control is nearly non-existent now. There's been way more gun restrictions in our history. Even in the wild west, you had to leave your firearm at home or check in for a 'token' if visitor. Since the NRA bought off politicians and judges to change laws/legislate from bench over past few decades, gun laws are more lax than they've ever been (which obviously leads to more firearm deaths).

 

lots of wrong stuff there. there is tons of gun control. the 1934 NFA for example the idiotic Hughes Amendment.

btw how did the federal government get any power to regulate firearms? LEGISLATION FROM THE BENCH

you also are confusing local ordinances with Federal laws.

the original INTENT Of the second amendment was a NEGATIVE RESTRICTION on a government that was never given any proper article one section eight powers to interfere with the arms of private citizens acting in a private capacity.

 

Yes, gun bans were common in wild west towns.

 

usually the ruling crime family allowed themselves and their followers to be armed. but that had nothing to do with federal laws, or even state laws. Indeed, there were no laws that banned people OWNING firearms or buying them.

 

If a group of people have the right to (x), it is because the individuals of that group have the right to (x).

 

seems pretty obvious to most of us. when the founders used the term "the people" individual rights are contemplated.