No. First and foremost the 2A specifically says in the second part "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Not only that but when you look at the founding fathers views of keeping arms you get this. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MW_noXjj6w8
The people are the militia, not a standing army. We are to be armed to defend the country from invasion or tyrannical government.
in fact there is absolutely no authority or documents or language connected to the US supreme court or the constitution that supports the fraudulent claim that one has to be a member of the well regulated militia to KBA. EVEN FDR's sycophantic court in MILLER rejected that view: Miller was a criminal not associated with any militia and if there was a militia requirement, Miller's position would have been dismissed on standing
Interesting thoughts from one constitutional scholar: "The amendment speaks of a right of 'the people' collectively rather than a right of 'persons' individually. And it uses a distinctly military phrase: 'bear arms.' A deer hunter or target shooter carries a gun but does not, strictly speaking, bear arms. The military connotation was even more obvious in an earlier draft of the amendment, which contained additional language that 'no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.' Even in the final version, note how the military phrase 'bear arms' is sandwiched between a clause that talks about the 'militia' and a clause (the Third Amendment) that regulates the quartering of 'soldiers' in times of 'war' and 'peace.' Likewise, state constitutions in place in 1789 consistently used the phrase 'bear arms' in military contexts and no other.... "The amendments syntax seems odd only because modern readers persistently misread the words 'militia' and 'people,' imposing twentieth-century assumptions on an eighteenth-century text." https://newrepublic.com/article/73718/second-thoughts It's a distinction that the Founders were not trying to make when they wrote the Second Amendment. The issue has really only arisen in modern times because people want a right without responsibilities.
Only well regulated militias may not be infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union. Natural rights are secured in State Constitutions, not our federal Constitution.
It sounds like the Supreme Court intentionally ignored the standing issue in order to establish a clear precedent that the federal government did have authority over firearms: "Miller and Layton, the defendants in the case, had no connection to the militia and thus were technically without standing to bring a Second Amendment claim. Rather than address this issue, the Court wisely recognized that the definition of the militia could change. If Congress decided to recreate the universal militia of the Founding era, a plausible scenario in an era when Europe was at war, the defendants might well have been able to raise such a claim. It was therefore important for the Court to reach a determination on the scope of congressional power over firearms quite apart from the issue of who might claim to be a member of the militia. Had the Court dismissed the case on the standing issue it never would have reached a decision on the type of weapon at the root of the case. The Court took the opportunity to settle this issue, which was a pressing public policy concern, the right to ban certain types of weapons closely associated with criminal behavior. The Court prudently developed a two-prong test to evaluate a Second Amendment claim: weapons had to be of a type related to militia activity and had to be used in conjunction with participation in a well-regulated militia. This test avoided the potentially absurd result of giving criminals the opportunity to claim that if their guns were used by the National Guard and part of the ordinary equipment of the soldier they were entitled to Second Amendment protection. If the court had focused exclusively on the type of weapon and ignored the context in which the weapon was used, it would have given Second Amendment protection to criminals bearing bazookas and flamethrowers.69" http://www.keithhunt.com/Guncontrol6c.html
are you clueless about the environment in which the Miller decision was enacted or how it was a conspiracy between the trial judge and the government to create a test case for the government to prevail on what was clearly an unconstitutional law. the guy you cite is wrong, the court specifically rejected that standing claim. And guess what, the article you cited is pretty worthless given that its not based on the reality that surrounded the creation of the constitution that nonsense is based first on a racist state Law (sullivan) and created long after the constitution was written. and it apparently is argued that changes in society somehow required the meaning of the second amendment to change garbage
This is not the view of John Adams: “The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.”
<Mod Edit> Gun Ban catch 22, by stating that the Second Amendment applies only to The Militia, and since No Official Militia exists currently, Arms can be denied to the Citizen Masses, claiming, that since they are not members of a Militia, they have no need of Military Arms, or Arms of any nature.
Read the DOI, it recognizes that the citizens may need to alter or abolish a government that no longer works for the people. These people are afforded the tools(2nd) to do so. Whether you like it or not.
The Militia exists, it's called "The National Guard" The Swiss have a working system, where members have their weapons at home, sealed, with the ammunition stored at their local training hall, sealed. Random shootings are rare there.
The militia arguement is a dead horse. Militia = The people. But, regardless SCOTUS ruled that clause doesn't define applicability of the Right. And, the 2A, like the 1A doesn't GRANT the rights, they were concidered inalienable, they limit the Government from passing laws infringing on the right. Continued reassertion of the militia arguement doesn't make it so, is counter to the the intent of the FF which can be plainly ascertained in the Federalist papers, transcripts of the 2A debate as it was being drafted, and in the writings of the FF on the issue. Before people continue to repeat, repeat, and repeat this over, and over, and over, they should not only read those sources, but read the entirety of the Heller vs DC ruling and in it, the history and rational for the SCOTUS ruling the the 2A is addressing an Individual right.
