A "common sense" proposal that will piss off both sides
- Thread starter VikingsGuy
- Start date
BrentD
Well-known member
I have always considered that 2A gives one the right to have arms. It does not give you the right to use them against .gov, so if you lose in your battle with .gov, expect to be prosecuted to the fullest extent. Hanging sounds about right. 2A makes rebellion more feasible, but not legal.
What was everyone's meaning of this restriction of government power for the first 180 years?
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.
406dn
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2019
- Messages
- 2,245
Here is a link to an editorial written by two Supreme court law clerks. One worked for Scalia and the other worked for Stevens. They each worked with their respective justice on the Heller case.
It is their opinion that many, maybe most misunderstand what Heller does and does not mean.
www.nytimes.com
It is their opinion that many, maybe most misunderstand what Heller does and does not mean.
Opinion | We Clerked for Justices Scalia and Stevens. America Is Getting Heller Wrong. (Published 2022)
The decision has been misused in important policy debates about our nation’s gun laws.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
My interpretation: If you look at how "State", capitalized, is used throughout the constitution it is used exclusively to mean a State of the United States, ie Massachusetts/ Vermont/ New Hampshire/ New York etc.
Therefore "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free Massachusetts, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
So contrary to at @BrentD, maybe?, I think the idea was that the governor/legislature of your State can call up it's citizens to defend the security of their State, though certainly not an individual or para-military group. Further I don't think you can look at the last clause "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." as completely independent of the first.
Seems like there is some relation of citizens owning firearms and a State militia. In my mind the 21 century version of this might be that States have some leeway in forming their own gun laws.
Last edited by a moderator:
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
A lot like @hank4elk mentioned, heavy emphasis on a "regulated Militia" with an implied capital "P" people. It was a right of the states more than a personal right. I admit that Heller deviates from that and I agree with Heller. My point in all of this is not to argue my guns should be taken away, but rather to hope my fellow hunters and citizens can set aside some of the "drop the mic"/"what don't you understand about not infringed" rhetoric.
Every single right under the Bill of Rights allows for regulation under, at best, "strict scrutiny" and sometimes lower scrutiny. This has been undeniably true for 220 years. To argue "not be infringed" is an absolute is a sad admission of ignorance of the very constitution folks are claiming they wish to protect.
So, the question is, what is the proper and useful application of the limited regulatory authority of the government to address present problems related to firearms. I argue things like universal background checks (or even better as some pointed out early in this thread, national owner background check that cuts out the transactional silliness) and minimum magnetic metal requirements are within this limited authority - while I find things like suppressor registration, barrel length and stock length rules, city by city carry rules, etc arbitrary traps for the unwary that add nothing to actual improve safety and should go.
I also don't view the 2A as the amendment that rules them all, as I believe the freedom of speech, press, and peaceful assembly (1A) is the true distinction between freedom and tyranny. And while it seems appealing to argue, there just isn't evidence in our historical record that individual firearm ownership under the 2A does in fact preserve the 1A (or other As for that matter).
I respect that others will have different views on these (and other) points. But I do not respect a complete dismissal of our constitutional framework and its application for the last 225 years.
Militia (United States) - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
The militia of the United States, as defined by the U.S. Congress, has changed over time.[1] During colonial America, all able-bodied men of a certain age range were members of the militia, depending on each colony's rule.[2] Individual towns formed local independent militias for their own defense.[
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
There is also a huge misunderstanding of what Roe said and didn't say, and the fact that Casey is that actual applicable law and it is different. But the extremists on both issues have no interest in letting actual understanding get in the way of very profitable outrage.Here is a link to an editorial written by two Supreme court law clerks. One worked for Scalia and the other worked for Stevens. They each worked with their respective justice on the Heller case.
It is their opinion that many, maybe most misunderstand what Heller does and does not mean.
Opinion | We Clerked for Justices Scalia and Stevens. America Is Getting Heller Wrong. (Published 2022)
The decision has been misused in important policy debates about our nation’s gun laws.
Still trying to figure out what everyone knew for 180 years. You make it out like before Heller, US citizens did not have the right to bear arms. Just wasn't the case. Heller may have clarified what was already known.
That is like the appointee that couldn't define a woman a few weeks back. Just because she doesn't want to acknowledge the definition doesn't change what we all know as a woman.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
From 1791 (ratification of the Bill of Rights) to 1947 the Bill of Rights did not apply to any state or local law. Now of course some states had their own rights in their own constitutions but I leave that review to others. The federal government passed very little gun control legislation during this time so the 2A was a pretty minimal right and of very little interest to all involved. When it did come up SCOTUS viewed it as a guarantee that the states could maintain a militia and things related to that. From 1934 (NFA) to 1990 (GFSZ) laws like the NFA, FFA, GCA, Safe Streets Act, Undetectable Firearms Acts and others easily passed constitutional scrutiny. Heck, the NRA was very active in promoting a number of gun control efforts in this window. So from 1791 to 1990 the 2nd amendment was never generally understood to provide an individual right to bear arms free from federal regulation. To say otherwise is not accurate.
Starting in the 1980s a number of gun advocates began to promote an individual defender narrative on the 2A. This has been extremely effective, leading many legal folks to see a path to Heller - the FIRST-ever controlling court ruling in favor of a personal 2A right. Unfortunately, along the way, history and constitutional jurisprudence have been thrown "out with the bathwater". So I agree with Scalia and Heller, but I also believe 90% of what the NRA and other gun-rights groups say about gun control history, the 2A, and constitutional jurisprudence is whitewashed PR bullshit. I expect HT readers to be smarter than this.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
Heller 2008
Spike in sales of AR's 2012.
The NRA et al. acts like this is some ancient ruling and understanding... my corolla is older than Heller.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
Not really in response to kinda a interesting aside.
MA has very strict gun laws... mags/assault weapons/licensing/ etc.
Muzzleloaders aren't considered guns, you don't need a license/background check and you can have them shipped to your house. So to that end MA is fully allowing unrestricted ownership of weapons that were around at the time of the drafting of the constitution.
American citizens understood they had a an individual right to bear arms from 1791 until 1990. You know how they knew? They could go to the store and buy them. They could order them from a magazine. They could buy them from their friend. It wasn't until the federal government grew and started trying to control more aspects of American lives and make more and more laws that some thought a clarification (Heller) was needed. Before the feds got involved, everyone knew what it meant.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
But not a short barreled shotgun, or a Tommy gun. Grandpa knew there were regulatory limits.
There were times when people knew they could buy cocaine in a soft drink. Time they could drive 80mph in MN. Time they could buy alcohol at 18yo. Time a developer could drain a wet land without permission. Time when one man could kill 100 buffalo in a day and let them rot. But those aren’t today’s times.
It is centuries old law that a govt’s forbearance in regulating things is no way an admission that it can’t/won’t in the future. And again, it did regulate firearms from 1934 to the present - everybody knows that.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
...
www.newson6.com
5 Dead In Mass Shooting At Tulsa Doctor's Office
New details are expected about a mass shooting that left 5 people dead, including the shooter on Wednesday afternoon.
Well I like many of you post on this subject but you kinda have to watch using those as evidence for freedom
they kinda have a watered down version of it
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
I have been to all and definitely am happy here in US - but they are all decent places and they consider themselves free - cultures do vary on the specific definitions of free.
None of those bolded were thought of as highly to receive their own Amendment. I'm thankful that the constructors were such forward thinkers. The ignorant or the evil may defeat 2A one of these days, but it won't be easy. Likely will be small bites at a time allowed by those that don't understand its significance. That is why many don't want to give up a small bite that would do little to no good in reducing actual crimes.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
I even tapped out for a bit thinking it was petering out, but got sucked back in.
But it is nice to see HT folks self moderating enough to have a full discussion.
Similar threads
