Federal judge issues opinion that people have the right to make their own unserialized firearms

Wasn't even meant to be a rebuttal that time. Meaningless troll post noted and returned in kind.

 

I suppose, but that doesn't really distinguish between personal arms and weapons of mass destruction, i.e. where the line should be drawn and why. It seems the right believes the line is somewhere between automatic weapons and tanks, I think. So... things that can be hand-held?

 

Oh, the irony.

"Well regulated" modifies "militia"
The right to keep and bear arms as protected by the 2nd, is held by "the people".
Not "the militia".
Not "the people in the militia".
"The people".
Thus "well regulated militia" is irrelevant when discussing the right protected by the 2nd, especially in terms of who holds that right.

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. You can disagree, but it means you choose to be wrong.

 

You asked "What is the meaning [of 'arms']?"
You were given the answer.
You apparently did not like the answer - but the answer it remains.

 

I am just pointing out exactly what the text says. I suspect you are alluding to how scotus has interpreted it.

"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."

These are not two separate issues in how it's written. There is no need for the word "being" if the statements are meant to be unconnected, even if we assume they had bad grammar. If they were meant to be two separate statement it could read: A well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

And consider historical context. They used their militias to fight against the British. The British didn't want them to have weapons. If they gave in to the British, their militias made of regular citizens would not have had rifles to fight with. This is where they are coming from with the 2nd amendment - regular citizens having power by having the rights to bear arms and form a militia, but a regulated one.

 

I don't think I disagreed or disliked anything in that post. But you assume it needs to be the case for some reason.

 

That, and why they interpreted it that way.

 

Well then - I am glad I could enlighten you.

 

You didn't really address my comments about the word "being" and the historical context. After all, if looking for objective truth we clearly cannot trust scotus given that roe applied and now doesn't.

All this said, though I poke fun at the 2nd amendment being applied to the present day as it is clearly a product of its particular historical time, I do not think gun control works very well. America's problem with guns is not a lack of gun control, it's a culture.

 

There was no need to do so - my argument stands regardless.

This is true.

 

The Second Amendment cannot protect the arms of the militia, or the right to bear arms in a militia. What does it protect then?

The right to keep and bear arms has been recognized as an individual right since 1776.

Pennsylvania: 1776: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power. Declaration of Rights, cl. XIII.
Vermont: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power. Ch. I, art. 16 (enacted 1777, ch. I, art. 15).
Kentucky: 1792: "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." Art. XII, § 23.
Ohio: 1802: "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State; and as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be kept up, and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to the civil power." Art. VIII, § 20.
Indiana: 1816: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State, and that the military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power. Art. I, § 20.
Mississippi: 1817: "Every citizen has a right to bear arms, in defence of himself and the State." Art. I, § 23.
Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. Art. I, § 15 (enacted 1818, art. I, § 17).
Missouri: 1820: "That the people have the right peaceably to assemble for their common good, and to apply to those vested with the powers of government for redress of grievances by petition or remonstrance; and that their right to bear arms in defence of themselves and of the State cannot be questioned." Art. XIII, § 3.
The constitutions and courts of the various states indicated an individual rights viewpoint at least 66 times..
http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm

 

Correct, as there is no right to be in the militia, and there can be no right to possess/use something owned by someone else.

 

Bearable arms. If you look at miller its "ordinary military equipment".
To me that includes handheld items, and would include grenades, rpgs etc.
Which means if you use such a thing you'd be liable for your backstop/hits on bystanders or destruction of their property.

Privately owned cannon were covered during the founding, so crew served weapons seems per se included.

 

whether you agree with natural rights or not means nothing. Why? because the founders did and if you want to understand the second amendment, you have to understand their desire to protect natural rights

 

If one had the money, you could own a ship of the line, fully loaded with canonS. Today I think it’d be a battleship. Certainly only the wealthy could own one however. I wouldn’t want to try and finance something like that.

 

that's more a tenth amendment issue than a second amendment one

 

Not post 14th amendment its not.
Incorporation destroys the ability of states to regulate the possession of arms as well.

 

I sort of agree with that but there is a big difference between the second amendment being drafted to apply to a government that was never given ANY power to regulate firearms (the federal government) vs state governments that had all sorts of police powers to regulate firearms but saw those powers modified by a court created application of incorporation. The courts are going to have to determine at what point a state law "infringes" because clearly states can limit the bearing of arms in certain areas-courthouses, jails, schools etc. A state certainly can prevent minors and felons from keeping arms as well.

 

You follow the Bruen test, and then apply incorporation.
So what can the feds do given the historic analogs in place? That is, post 14th amendment, what the states can do.

As I have to tell liberals all the time: IF you don't like that, amend the Constitution to provide a caveat.

 

what sort of gun control laws do you think are allowed at a state level without violating incorporation?

1)obviously laws against armed robbery, murder, assault

2) shooting a firearm in an obviously unsafe manner or in an inappropriate area (such as shooting shotguns at pigeons in times square or engaging in high power rifle practice in Central Park

3) what about prohibiting the bearing of firearms while committing say a narcotics transaction

4) what about bearing a firearm while stoned or drunk

5) what about possession of a firearm by someone who has been convicted of a violent felony

 

Obviously 1 has numerous analogs. 2 in an unsafe manner has analogs discussed in Heller as I recall, you can't be brandishing at people etc. Inappropriate area only has direct analogs for courthouses and the like essentially, and I'm not sure a school qualifies as that though as I recall the justices indicated they'd be amenable to hearing that argument.

3, 4, and 5 have no historic analog I'm aware of but I'm willing to hear your citations that you think apply Counsel.
On 4: That's covered by 2 IF the person is demonstrably a problem, IE you can be drunk its only if you're brandishing etc that its an issue. So its not a per se thing like a strict liability, that has no historic analog.
Rather instead it must be proven that you were in fact acting in a prohibited manner.
Think of it this way: I can get hammered and go vote. I can get hammered and speak. I can get hammered and be free from search and seizure, have a right to counsel etc.
The only thing you're saying I can't do is possess a firearm. That has no historic analog and so fails Bruen's Spear (TM).

 

You mean the first amendment. Speech is covered by the First amendment if you don't even know what the Constitution says and you probably shouldn't be talking about it.

 

No it doesn't. Arms refers to ,and there's plenty of precedent for this, possession of arms for a legal and lawful purpose.

Come on immitrate is not an arm. It's a component of manufacturing. The idea that you hear it as an armament indicates you don't have a legal purpose.

 

no you're not. You're suggesting the text said something it doesn't.

The only mention of a militia is that a well-regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state.

That says nothing about the ownership of guns except for that a militia needs to be well regulated meaning well supplied. Such as weapons and ammunition and the militia is made up of citizens so that's why it's included in the Second amendment.

Citizens have to own guns in order for the militia to be regulated

you mean constitutional experts?

it says in clear English the right belongs to the people.

how do you supply a militia if you have no supplies?

You're disagreeing with both components of it

You're getting stuck in ambiguity here. And it's dishonest. Regulated means supplied. It has to be well supplied where does the militia get its supply?

 

Regulated means supplied in their language? If true, that might be the source of the confusion, lol. I do recall professional, standard soldiers were called "regulars" but this is a new use of the word regulated for me.

Forgive me for not trusting professionals since scotus both wrote and struck down Roe.

I'm not actually against the right to bear arms, but it's for a completely different reason than the 2nd amendment alludes to (more like the same reason I am for legalized drugs). I just think religious devotion to the ideas of the founding fathers is silly and I'd rather make a new constitution. It's silly because the context of when they wrote it is so wildly different from today it's barely comparable. We're not going to beat a tyrannical government with friggin militias, for starters. Not that it was that simple back then either, but much more applicable than today.