If you can't comprehend this, then you're part of the problem. The Truth About the Second Amendment It was always meant to protect an individual right Stop me if you’ve heard this one before. In 1791, the Founding Fathers placed into the U.S. Constitution a set of ten amendments that we refer to collectively as the “Bill of Rights.” Among them was an innocuous measure designed to protect state militias against federal overreach. Until the 1970s, nobody believed that this meant anything important, or that it was relevant to modern American society. But then, inspired by profit and perfidy, the dastardly National Rifle Association recast the provision’s words and, sua sponte, brainwashed the American public into believing that they possessed an individual right to own firearms. Right? Wrong. Simply put, the above charge, which is popular in the press and in some quarters of the academy, is not true. In fact, it’s farcical. Certainly, the last few decades have brought with them a sea change in both the jurisprudence and the academic literature that undergird the Second Amendment. And certainly, there has been a move away from the mid-20th-century consensus that the Second Amendment was either meaningless — in 1975, the American Bar Association proclaimed bizarrely that “it is doubtful that the Founding Fathers had any intent in mind with regard to the meaning of this Amendment” — or wholly without teeth as a protector of individual rights. And yet, contrary to popular claims, these transformations did not represent a novel revolution in meaning or interpretation but rather a much-needed restoration of what for most of American history was supremely, even mundanely, obvious: that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” means “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2018/08/27/the-truth-about-the-second-amendment/
The 'individual right' view was never in question until leftist-dominated circuit courts deliberately misread Miller.
The word "militia" doesn't appear in NFA 1934, GCA 1968, FOPA 1986, the Brady Act, the Assault Weapons Ban or Lautenberg. If the consensus belief was the collective view, you have to wonder why none of these gun control laws mention that.
Good thing there are several quotes from our founding fathers on this issue: "A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..." - George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790 "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776 "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787 "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787 "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776 "A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785 "The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824 "On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823 "I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence ... I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778 “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759 "To disarm the people...s the most effectual way to enslave them." - George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788 "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788 "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787 "Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of." - James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788 "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789 "...the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone..." - James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788 "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." - William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783 “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788 "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun." - Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778 "This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." - St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803 "The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like law, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance ofpower is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one-half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves." - Thomas Paine, "Thoughts on Defensive War" in Pennsylvania Magazine, July 1775 "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788 "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them." - Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833 "What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." - Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789 "For it is a truth, which the experience of ages has attested, that the people are always most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 25, December 21, 1787 "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28 "f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788 "As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." - Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789
Jack Miller and Frank Layton were bank robbers who were arrested for possessing an unregistered sawed-off shotgun which was illegal under the newly passed NFA. The lower court which first heard their case actually agreed that the NFA was a violation of their Second Amendment rights. The case eventually went to the Supreme Court which did not find any violation of Second Amendment rights. For decades the lower courts unanimously interpreted Miller as holding that the right protected by the Second Amendment was dependent on being a member of the well-regulated militia. The alternative interpretation (the one the NRA has favored) had horrifying implications: violent criminals have the right to possess militia-type firearms. Although it might be reasonably argued that a sawed-off shotgun is not a militia-type weapon it would be harder to justify bans on other types of firearms such as full auto M-16's. Of course, the controversial 5-4 Heller ruling invalidated both interpretations of Miller. According to that ruling, a firearm is Constitutionally protected if is in common usage and the right is subject to reasonable restrictions. Government can prohibit certain individuals from possessing firearms, can create gun-free zones, and can regulate the sale of firearms.
Miller appealed his initial sentence based on his 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms. He was not a member of a militia. If the courts all the way to SCOTUS held that the 2A only protected the rights on militia members, Miller would have had no standing to even get before the Supreme Court. If for decades the collective model was accepted, why didn't NFA 1934, GCA 1968, FOPA 1986, Brady Act, the AWB or Lautenberg mention the word militia a single time? Why did the Senate in 1982 publish this report: https://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/87senrpt.pdf
You can say what you want. Why did you post a photo of some guys in camo with guns and make the comment you did? Wasn't it to initiate some type of discussion?
If you were here to discuss the topic of the thread, we'd be talking about "well-regulated militia" with regards to the Second Amendment. I've tried to get you to discuss the topic; you keep bringing up off-topic issues. I'll try again: Why did you post a photo of some guys in camo with guns and make the comment you did (well regulated)?
It wasn't claimed that all the lower courts to the Supreme Court held that the 2nd only protected the rights of militia members. The important thing is what the Supreme Court decided. Let's look at how the Supreme Court interpreted Miller in Lewis v. United States: "(a) The plain meaning of 1202 (a) (1)'s sweeping language proscribing the possession of firearms by any person who 'has been convicted by a court of the United States or of a State . . . of a felony,' is that the fact of a felony conviction imposes firearm disability until the conviction is vacated or the felon is relieved of his disability by some affirmative action.... "These legislative restrictions on the use of firearms are neither based upon constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do they trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties. See United States v. Miller,307 U.S. 174, 178 (1939) (the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to [445 U.S. 55, 66] the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia') " Did the Supreme Court mean that a ban on felons owning any type of firearm was justifiable per Miller because no type of firearm could ever be useful in a well-regulated militia? Or did the Supreme Court mean that a ban on felons owning any type of firearm was justifiable per Miller because felons do not belong to the well-regulated militia? The latter interpretation of Miller seems much more plausible.
The Miller case was determined long after the defendant had already died, and was unable to assist in his own defense. And what exactly is the problem of such potentially being the case? If these individuals are too dangerous to be trusted with legal firearms ownership, then they are devoid of a legitimate reason for being free in society under any standard. Had the Miller case actually been determined as is being claimed, the united state supreme court would have simply refused to hear the case, as the defendant would not have standing to challenge the law because he was not a member of any state or local militia. Meaning that government cannot do anything that it has not already done. Meaning the authority of the government to regulate firearms is now stagnate, and cannot be extended to any greater capacity than already exists.
The decision was made simply to uphold the existence of the National Firearms Act, otherwise the lower court ruling that the law was unconstitutional would have stood.
I have a question that might resolve all the amendment problems.. If you can, off the top of your head, tell when the Democratic and Republican Parties were formed and for what reasons, then maybe all the amendment talking is nothing but hot air... Democrat Party is an epithet for the Democratic Party in the United States used in a disparaging fashion by the party's opponents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(epithet) Anti Administration party Democratic-Republican Party Democratic Party Democratic-Republican Party, National Republican Party, Republican Party
Nothing in the text of Miller supports this interpretation. That is, the lower courts made this up. This is why Heller overturned these invalid interpretations.
