THE most significant flaw in the militia-only interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is...

Discussion in 'Gun Control' started by BryanVa, Jul 12, 2017.

  1. BryanVa

    BryanVa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    451
    Likes Received:
    354
    Trophy Points:
    63
    No one can tell you how it actually works.

    Justice Stevens, in his Heller dissent, summarized his view of the purpose of the Amendment this way:

    The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia.” District Of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 637 (2008) (Stevens, dissenting)

    And because of its placement in the Bill of Rights, it logically follows the purpose was to protect the “well-regulated militia” from the power of the federal government to somehow disrupt it.

    The interpretation has evolved over time into the view Justice Stevens ultimately endorsed—namely—that the amendment protects the “well-regulated militia” by creating (or protecting) a right to bear militia arms in militia service. Thus, the “right of the people” is limited to having only militia arms and only while in active militia service. Stevens goes on to suggest the goal was to prevent the disarmament of the militia.

    But then he refuses to explain how it the Amendment actually works to protect the “well-regulated militia”…..

    And now I have to make a very public confession….

    For the life of me I cannot figure it out either.

    The reason I cannot answer it is because of how the Constitution has allocated the militia power.

    Article I Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power:

    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.”

    And Congress’ power over the organization, the arms, the disciplining, and the training of the militia is rendered absolute by the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause found in Article VI:

    This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.”

    The Supremacy Clause works this way….The states are free to legislate in areas controlled by Congress, but when Congress acts, Congress may impose its will on the states, and they are powerless to do anything different.

    This transfer to Congress of ultimate decision making power over the militias was set in stone before the 2nd Amendment was drafted, and I just cannot understand how the militia-only interpretation protects the militia from Congress’ power.

    I bring this up again because I recently saw an old blogging acquaintance of mine, Galileo, stick to his militia interpretation (which, to his credit, has been his consistent view over the years I have known him).

    And, since Justice Stevens is no help, I finally decided to ask him to tell me how his interpretation actually works. The question has so far gone unanswered. The thread just died, and it has since fallen off the front page.

    So I wanted to ask it again and open it up to anyone who favors the militia only interpretation of the 2nd. Amendment.

    How does your interpretation actually work?

    In trying to answer the question, here are the issues I have found:

    If Congress decided to disarm the militias by refusing to properly arm them, and by also forbidding others to do so, then how does the 2nd Amendment overcome this?

    Does it somehow repeal Congress’ ultimate power over militia arms—sort of a “you can tell us what we can and can’t have but you have to let us have something” argument?

    Or does it grant some concurrent power to “the people” to arm the militias contrary to the will of Congress—sort of a “if you refuse to give us arms then we have a right to arm the militias ourselves” argument? And if it did, then where would these weapons come from? Would there not have to be some source of arms beyond the reach of Congress that can be drawn upon? (Could this be your meaning for the “keep” part?)

    And the problems with the militia-only interpretation go deeper than this (at least for me).

    For even if we assume the operative clause containing the RKBA is intended to preserve the “well-regulated militia” from Congress’ power to damage it, then why did the Amendment only protect arms?

    What about Congress’ other powers over the militia?

    Congress has the organizing power, and can utilize it to set the size of the militia so small as to be ineffective no matter how well armed its members could be. What good is a right to have arms in the militia if Congress can simply reduce the size of the militia to a worthlessly small parade ground guard force?

    How is it a "right of the people" when the individual has no say in whether he can be a militia member or not. Congress has the total power (except for officer appointments controlled by the states) to say who can and who cannot be a member. Doesn't the militia only interpretation intentionally redefine the words "the right of the people" to really mean "the right of the chosen few whom Congress has allowed to join the militia club"?

    And what about Congress’ total power over training? The states are expressly limited to the training approved by Congress. What if Congress creates a wholly inadequate training regimen? Was it not Socrates who once observed that “a disorderly mob is no more an army than a heap of building materials is a house”? How does the Amendment protect the "well-regulated militia" from Congress' power to refuse to permit it to be properly trained?

    So if the protection of the “well-regulated militia” is the object of the Amendment, then why limit the right—that core thing which Congress may not infringe upon—to protecting arms and leave these other Congressional powers unmentioned and unabridged? Are they not as potentially disruptive to the “well-regulated militia”?

    Listen I am genuinely interested to hear how all this is explained.

    Justice Stevens either could not or would not do it. I believe this failure irreparably damages his argument—for how can you be taken seriously when you say a right was intended for a purpose, but then cannot tell you how it achieves that purpose?

    So is there anyone out there—someone who believes in the militia only interpretation of the Amendment—who is willing to tell me how it actually works?

    I'm not so foolish as to demand a reply, and I realize I may only hear crickets chirping in response, but I am asking....

    Anybody want to take a crack at it?
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2017
    Reality, Maccabee, Steady Pie and 6 others like this.
  2. DoctorWho

    DoctorWho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    15,501
    Likes Received:
    3,740
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nobody can, Congress has power over the well regulated Militia, the Right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall NOT be infringed.
    Congress has no say over the peoples Right to keep and bear Arms as they do over the Militia.

    The Militia only interpretation is to declare open season on regulating firearms, to infringe on them, contrary to; The Right to keep and bear Arms shall NOT be infringed.....


    There can be no other true interpretation.
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2017
    Doofenshmirtz likes this.
  3. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    66,645
    Likes Received:
    46,476
    Trophy Points:
    113
    IMHO, the question here is, what is the militia?

    The obvious response is a very famous quote from a very famous man.

    Just because there is a federal militia, does not mean that that particular body is the only militia.

    Most states, for example, do not have laws against the formation of private militias, or state militias that do not answer to federal influence.

    Since the 2nd Amendment clearly says "A" militia, it seems they are referring to any necessity that requires men to arm themselves in coordinated defense.

    At the time of the writing, that could have included national defense at the federal level, resistance against an oppressive federal government, potential state v state conflicts, or a town/community defending itself from bandits/border raiders.

    In order to form a militia, one must first be able to individually possess a weapon.

    Without the means to resist an armed attacker, a militia cannot be formed.
     
    upside222 likes this.
  4. Texan

    Texan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2014
    Messages:
    9,126
    Likes Received:
    4,696
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    With Stephens' interpretation, wouldn't the right to keep and bear arms be given to the "people" in the militia? I wasn't allowed to carry a gun on or off base when I was in the Texas Air National Guard. Were my rights violated? Maybe I should sue Texas and the USAF, as they denied my Constitutional right as a "person" in the militia to keep and bear arms. I could either make a boatload of money or force them to deny this interpretation with a class action suit.
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2017
    6Gunner likes this.
  5. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,640
    Likes Received:
    11,208
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think a lot of people are just misunderstanding the language, and are not aware of the original intent and context it was written in.

    The reason why the phrasing is separated into commas is because both the State militias and the people's right to bear arms were meant to be protected from federal infringement.

    It was a right under the U.S. Constitution, but the U.S. Constitution is not the only law of the land. You have all those individual State constitutions. In all probability, no one originally envisioned this as a personal right not to be infringed by the State government one was residing in. It would only be latter when the Supreme Court started trying to apply the protections in the Bill of Rights enforcing them onto the States.
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2017
    Steady Pie likes this.
  6. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    93,457
    Likes Received:
    14,675
    Trophy Points:
    113
    According to the US Code, all able-bodied men aged 18 to 45 are part of the Unorganized Militia.

    The Militia Act of 1792 required all such men to purchase a gun, for the purpose of use in this militia.

    The 2nd Amendment and the Militia Act of 1792 go hand in hand.
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2017
  7. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,640
    Likes Received:
    11,208
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The original militias were run by each individual State. You can see that in the Constitution, it's the state who appoints officers. The federal government could call them into action, having ultimate legal authority to do so, but the actual means of power, the power structure, rested in the hands of the States.

    At that time the federal government did not really have a standing military force, other than a very puny Navy.
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2017
    upside222 likes this.
  8. BryanVa

    BryanVa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    451
    Likes Received:
    354
    Trophy Points:
    63

    I disagree. The Militia Act has nothing to do with the Second Amendment. It is an act of Congress, using its power over militia arms found in Article I Section 8, to say “today we decree it will be done this way.”

    The 2nd Amendment protects “the right of the people.” In my opinion, it is absurd to link “the right of the people” with the Militia Act. There is no “right of the people” involved here. This is the government ordering “the people” to do something. Linking the two together translates the words “the right of the people” into a mere command from Congress that “the people have a right to obey the order we have just given them.”

    There simply is no “right of the people” involved in Congress ordering the people to do something.

    But since you are here let me refine the issue for you.

    I believe the “militia only” interpretation of the amendment—which holds the amendment recognizes only a right to have militia arms in militia service—is an illegitimate interpretation.

    It is born from the war over the purpose of the 2nd Amendment, and it is perhaps the greatest misfire ever in that war.

    Those who cling to this interpretation cannot accept that the words “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” mean what they actually say—for that would concede the purpose of the Amendment is to recognize an individual RKBA unconnected with active militia service.

    Their goal was (and still is) to eliminate the amendment as an obstacle to more far reaching “gun control.” The most effective way to achieve this goal was to limit the RKBA to militia service by shackling the RKBA to the militia preamble. And so the purpose of the Amendment had to be defined as limited to the sole protection of the “well-regulated militia.”

    The first use of this limited purpose argument was the “state’s right to a well-regulated militia” interpretation. But the “state’s right” interpretation has slowly been abandoned with the grudging concession that the words “the right of the people” actually mean some “right of the people.”

    However, the abandonment of one argument was not the abandonment of the pursuit of the goal of denying the individual RKBA.

    And so we have seen the rise of a new interpretation that lays claim to the same purpose for the amendment.

    This newer interpretation says the Amendment does indeed recognize an individual RKBA, but the purpose remains limited to the protection of the “well-regulated militia,” and therefore this is merely a right to have militia arms while in militia service.

    And here you find the clearest proof of the illegitimacy of this interpretation: Its inability to explain how it fulfills the purpose they say it was created for.

    I argue that it ignores the rest of the Constitution in its haste to fulfill the goal of limiting the RKBA. And in so doing it places these artificial limits on the RKBA that render the right incapable of fulfilling the purpose they claim it was created for.

    And any interpretation which intentionally renders an Amendment incapable of fulfilling the purpose for which you claim it was created for is, in my opinion, absurd.



    Ronstar, if you believe in this “militia only” interpretation of the 2nd Amendment…If you believe that it does not recognize any RKBA outside actual militia service…then tell me how it all works.

    Tell me how limiting the RKBA to militia arms in militia service can possibly protect the “well-regulated militia” from the power of Congress to disrupt it.
     
  9. Turtledude

    Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    30,274
    Likes Received:
    20,263
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    stevens also complained that he could not believe that the founders would not have given the new government the power to regulate or ban guns and thus he assumed that since it was an oversight on their part, he'd find such a power exists. In reality, the founders saw the states as the only governmental entity with the power to restrict the actions of private citizens and thus there was no oversight.

    anyone who claims the second amendment is a right that only vests after someone joins a federally controlled militia is so ignorant or dishonest about constitution scholarship that they can never be taken seriously
     
    Texan, 6Gunner and DoctorWho like this.
  10. Galileo

    Galileo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    2,860
    Likes Received:
    481
    Trophy Points:
    83
    "An instance within the memory of some of this house will show us how our militia may be destroyed. Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia."
    -George Mason

    Anti-federalists such as Patrick Henry and George Mason were alarmed that the Constitution granted Congress so much power over the militia. The Second Amendment was meant as an assurance that Congress would not abuse its power over the militia. It was meant as an assurance that Congress would make sure the militia was an effective, well-trained, and well-armed force. Did it go so far as to partially repeal Congressional power over the militia? I'm not sure that it did.

    Can the RKBA be separated from the militia? Scalia took a divide and conquer approach to interpreting the Second Amendment. Only by analyzing each part of the Second Amendment in isolation could he reach the conclusion he wanted to. But that's not normally how people interpret a piece of text. People consider context and the meaning of the piece of text as a whole. The obvious context of the RKBA in the Second Amendment is the militia preamble. "Bear arms" often had a military meaning in that day. So the second part of the Second Amendment is arguably ambiguous in isolation but paired with a clarifying preamble about the militia its meaning becomes much more clear.

    Scalia, however, did think the militia clause could play a role in determining the scope of RKBA in one way. He thought a ban on dangerous and unusual weapons was okay because dicta in Miller said something about the militia owning guns in common use. I think he didn't want the NFA being ruled unconstitutional at some future date.
     
    Last edited: Jul 14, 2017
  11. Turtledude

    Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    30,274
    Likes Received:
    20,263
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    can you find ANYTHING in the constitution that even remotely suggests the founders intended the federal government had any power to regulate what sort of firearms private citizens could own?

    the gun banners spend a lot of time trying to pretend the second amendment's blanket prohibition on federal action is "limited" to the point of absurdity while at the same time creating vast governmental powers in Article One Section 8 that were never mentioned nor intended
     
    6Gunner and DoctorWho like this.
  12. BryanVa

    BryanVa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    451
    Likes Received:
    354
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I am happy to have a debate about the scope of the 2nd Amendment’s protection of the individual RKBA private firearms, and how Scalia justifies excluding “unusual and dangerous” firearms from the scope of the protected right.

    But we can’t have this argument without an admission that the 2nd Amendment recognizes a RKB private arms outside militia service.

    You see, this question you raise with Scalia is about the scope of the right—what firearms it protects. The question I am after is the very nature of the right itself—who exactly has the right.

    And the interpretation I am questioning right now deems much of your post irrelevant, because it’s only issue is whether you are a government approved militia member using a government approved firearm while in government approved militia service. If the answer to this question is yes, then you have a right to that firearm for that approved purpose. If the answer is no, then there is no need to discuss what types of firearms are protected, for there is no right to have any firearm outside militia service.

    The clarity of linking the militia to the 2nd Amendment is not an issue. The issue is not whether the preservation of a militia was one consideration for the Amendment. The issue is the use of this consideration to strangle the right to the point of irrelevance.

    To put it simply, Galileo….

    It would be an impeachment of the common sense of mankind to expect anyone to agree with someone who says “This right of the people was (created/recognized) for a particular purpose, and my interpretation renders it incapable of meeting that purpose.”

    But that is exactly what this interpretation does. The end (the interpretation’s goal of denying any individual RKBA beyond government controlled militia service) justifies the means (divorcing the right from any ability to meet its stated purpose).

    This is my position. But I am not a supporter of it, and I admit my bias against it. I simply ask for someone who supports it to step up and explain it.

    Arguing that the militia preamble clarifies the meaning of the Amendment is fine. But all that does is restate what the militia-only interpretation believes.

    It says nothing about how this belief actually works.

    Now if this interpretation has any legitimacy…If you truly believe in this limited interpretation of a “right of the people,” and you believe that the limitation is justified because it fits your stated purpose of the right, then it is surely a small matter to explain how the limited right fulfils the purpose you say it was created for.

    So my question remains…If the RKBA is truly limited to militia arms in militia service, then how does this limited right serve the purpose of protecting the “well-regulated militia” from the power of Congress to abuse or neglect it?

    I believe the entire legitimacy of the militia only interpretation hinges on the ability to explain this.
     
    Texan and 6Gunner like this.
  13. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The second amendment to the united states constitution has no power regarding the militia. Its purpose was and still remains, to prevent government from depriving private individuals of their privately owned firearms, kept for any and all legal purposes. That is the long and the short of the matter.
     
    6Gunner likes this.
  14. BryanVa

    BryanVa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    451
    Likes Received:
    354
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I am prepared, if I must, to try the “militia only” interpretation in abstentia—since it appears that no one will come to its defense and explain how it can work.

    Here is some logic which simply cannot be disputed….The first 8 Amendments found in the BoR were written to protect specific individual liberty interests from governmental abuse, and every one of them was intended to be interpreted in a way that allows them to meet the goals for which they were written. Therefore, there are two necessary preconditions which every legitimate interpretation must have: 1. An ability to understand and explain the purpose for an Amendment, and 2. The ability to show how the interpretation of the language of the Amendment allows it to fulfil this purpose.

    These are the two minimum requirements for any interpretation to be taken seriously.

    The “militia only” interpretation claims the “right of the people to keep and bear arms” is limited to protecting a “right” of governmentally approved militia members to keep and bear governmentally approved militia arms while in governmentally approved militia service.

    And what is the reason advanced for this restrictive reading of the Amendment? The claim is this restriction on the “right of the people” is necessary and logical because the purpose of the Amendment was only to protect the militias from the power of the federal government to abuse and neglect them.

    And yet—for reasons I have argued already in this thread—the reading of this “right of the people” is so narrow that it prohibits the Amendment from achieving its claimed purpose of protecting the militias. Instead, it actually places any “right of the people” under the total domination of Congress.

    Why? Because this interpretation does not care about the true purpose of this Amendment—still less for its ability to achieve any purpose it was originally written for.

    Instead, this is a fraudulent interpretation that has abandoned its stated purpose for the Amendment because it has always been in pursuit of a totally separate goal—that of denying any individual “right of the people to keep and bear arms” outside the ability of the government to control every aspect of it.

    This interpretation takes what was once a pre-existing “right of the people” to keep and bear arms outside the militias—a right which the militias once relied upon as the very source of their arms—and includes it in the Bill of Rights for the express purpose of limiting its protection to the complete discretion of Congress. The effect of this argument is this: A “right of the people” was specifically included within the people’s Bill of Rights so that Congress would have the power to destroy it.

    The interpretation not only abandons any stated purpose for the Amendment, it is the antithesis of the very reason for a Bill of Rights in the first place—for the Bill of Rights was drafted to protect, not to destroy, our individual rights. The illogic underlying this argument is so profound that it is a wonder to find anyone clinging to it—at least on this side of the looking glass.

    There now, that is part of my closing argument.

    If you disagree, then speak up. Call me out and present an argument for why I am wrong. Tell me—if you can—how your interpretation divines the true purpose for the Amendment and how your interpretation meets the purpose for which it was intended.

    And to be perfectly fair about it—please feel free to also call me out on my interpretation and make me show how the one I believe works.

    I am perfectly happy to convert my argument into an opening statement in a trial of competing interpretations here in this free marketplace of ideas.

    Again, is there anyone out there who can tell me how your interpretation of the Amendment actually works?
     
    roorooroo and Turtledude like this.
  15. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    76,435
    Likes Received:
    51,248
    Trophy Points:
    113
    To make sure the Militia knows they can have guns! What good is an unarmed militia?

    The Framers in their wisdom knew that the day could come when everyone forgot that the Militia was going to need guns, so they made sure everyone knew, the Militia needs guns!

    The Left Encourages People to File Frivolous Lawsuits Against Innocent, Lawful Gun-Sellers in Shooting Cases, Then Complains When They're Forced to Pay Attorney's Fees in Their Frivolous Harassment Suits

    Few things are more entertaining than a butt hurt "progressive!"
     
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2017
  16. upside222

    upside222 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2017
    Messages:
    4,478
    Likes Received:
    1,195
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Scalia pointed out in the Heller decision that the most basic use of English grammar gives you the meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

    1. The first phrase of the 2nd is a present participle. It's not even a clause since it has no subject or verb so it can't actually *do* anything. A present participle is an adjective which modifies the subject of the following clause.
    2. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state". This gives the *reason* why the FF's included the 2nd Amendment but it is only a *reason*, it is not a *restriction* in any way, shape, or form.
    3. "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." This is the main clause of the 2nd. It stands alone. "the right ... shall not be infringed". Put in any right you can think off in the blank. "The right of the people to freely exercise their religion shall not be infringed". It reads the same for any right.
    4. Structurally the 2nd is no different than the sentence "Dogs being necessary to the security of the junk yard, the right of dogs to bark shall not be infringed". Can anyone read that sentence such that only junk yard dogs can bark?

    Fed Paper 29, Concerning the Militia, says: "Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped". The term of art "the people at large" is pretty self-explanatory.

    The Federalist Papers have been used in the past by the Supreme Court as guidance in determining the intentions of the Founding Fathers, much as the Congressional Record is used to determine legislative intent.

    How any Supreme Court justice can ignore what was written in Fed Paper 29 is just beyond me.

    How they can torture basic English grammar into saying only those serving in the militia have the right to keep and bear arms is just beyond me.
     
  17. Turtledude

    Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    30,274
    Likes Received:
    20,263
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    because many leftwing activists don't care about the constitution and see the ends as justifying the means.
     
    6Gunner, DoctorWho and upside222 like this.
  18. Galileo

    Galileo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    2,860
    Likes Received:
    481
    Trophy Points:
    83
    The Second Amendment really recognizes a right to participate in government. There are different ways that the people participate in government which include voting in government organized elections, serving on government organized juries, and also serving in government organized militias. The changes that Congress made to the militia in the early 20th Century were gross violations of the Second Amendment but nobody seemed to mind. The Second Amendment really says nothing about the use of guns for private purposes. It is neutral on that issue. It was not written to address that issue.
     
  19. Galileo

    Galileo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    2,860
    Likes Received:
    481
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Scalia did not have a good understanding of the role that preambles played in the 18th century law. They often were more than just justification clauses. Even if Scalia were correct about that then there is still the matter of the second part of the amendment. Scalia was unable to adequately explain why the military term “bear arms” appears in that part. He claimed that “bear arms” only has a military meaning when followed by the word “against”, but there are numerous examples that prove him wrong on that point. If the second part of the Second Amendment is ambiguous at all then naturally we should look at context to clarify its meaning and such context, of course, includes the preamble. So unless we can be 100% that “bear arms” has a non-military meaning Scalia’s interpretation falls apart. That seems doubtful especially given that it clearly did have a military meaning in early drafts of the Second Amendment.

    As for Federalist 29, Hamilton expressed his opinion that it would only be practical for Congress to arm the militia. Despite that, Congress is explicitly granted the power to organize, arm, and discipline the militia. Hamilton’s opinion does not nullify what is in the Constitution.
     
  20. Turtledude

    Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    30,274
    Likes Received:
    20,263
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    where do you come up with this nonsense? the second amendment is a recognition of the right of individuals to be armed, which is an outgrowth of the natural right of free citizens to self defense. On top of that, the tenth amendment clearly indicates that there is no PROPER federal power to intrude into this area
     
    6Gunner likes this.
  21. Turtledude

    Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    30,274
    Likes Received:
    20,263
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    this is hilarious, can you tell us where in the constitution, the federal government was delegated any power to restrict the arms of private citizens
     
    6Gunner likes this.
  22. upside222

    upside222 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2017
    Messages:
    4,478
    Likes Received:
    1,195
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You are totally ignoring what Fed Paper 29 says, it doesn't say "militia". It says " Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped;" (bolding mine, upside)

    Taken in the context of the time this meant that the people at large needed to be able to defend themselves, both individually and as an ad hoc, unorganized milita. The Founding Fathers never, *ever* recorded any belief that the organized militia would be able to be all places at all times to protect the "people at large".

    . And you are also using non-standard grammar rules. The words "keep and bear arms" is a term of art in the 1700's that does not strictly address military uses.

    I would point you here: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1086176

    and here: www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/preview/publiced_preview_briefs_pdfs_07_08_07_290_RespondentAmCuCATOInstJMalcolm.authcheckdam.pdf

    "Amici therefore set out below the right to have and use arms in English law by the time of the Founding. Amici then show how early American authorities claimed and extended that right, including in interpreting the Second Amendment. The English right was a right of individuals, not conditioned on militia service; individuals might exercise the right collectively, but the unquestioned core was a broadly applicable and robust right to “keep” firearms in one’s home for self-defense. Even the “well recognized exceptions” confirmed this core right, by focusing on the carrying, not the keeping, of weapons."

    "The English right to arms emerged in 1689, and in the century thereafter courts, Blackstone, and other authorities recognized it. They recognized a personal, individual right. It could not have been a federalism provision, and none of them conditioned it on militia service—depredations by the king’s militia having provided one reason for it. Pre-existing restrictions fell away as the right developed after 1689, such that by the Second Amendment’s adoption Americans had inherited a broadly applicable and robust individual right that had been settled for at least fifty years. This right of course had limits, but they did not intrude on the core right to keep firearms to defend home and family: They confirmed it."

    "This article set out a personal right. See Lois G. Schwoerer, The Declaration of Rights, 1689, at 283 (1981) (recognizing that many articles “guaranteed rights to the individual,” including the right “to bear arms (under certain restrictions)”). Neither the article nor the indictment tied having arms to militia service, which the Declaration nowhere mentioned. Rather, being “armed” and “employed” were distinct. Furthermore, the right belonged to “Subjects,” allowed arms “for their Defence”; indeed, Parliament adopted such language in lieu of the House of Commons’ drafts referring to “their common Defence,” see G&V at 58-59. "

    You simply cannot read the original Bill of Rights using meanings from the left attached today to the words in the Amendments. You *must* read them as they were meant at the time of the Constitution. "keeping and bearing arms" in 1786 did *not* have only a military meaning as the left would have you believe today!

    The leading phrase of the 2nd Amendment is not a preamble, it is a present participle explaining why the FF's included the right in the Bill of Rights. As an adjective it only describes, it does not restrict that which it modifies.
     
  23. Galileo

    Galileo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    2,860
    Likes Received:
    481
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Keeping and bearing arms did have a military meaning within the context of the Second Amendment. There was no distinction between the organized militia and "unorganized militia" at the time Federalist 29 was written. Your quote from it is out of context. Read the whole thing again. There is no reason to believe that Hamilton was talking about the federal government arming people outside of the militia. He was talking about people in the militia.
     
  24. Rucker61

    Rucker61 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    9,774
    Likes Received:
    4,103
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Has the federal government ever armed anyone outside of the militia and military?
     
    Turtledude likes this.
  25. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Then demonstrate the actual proof that supports such a concept.
     
    6Gunner and upside222 like this.

Share This Page