The meaning of the Second Amendment

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • KellyinAvon

    Blue-ID Mafia Consigliere
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Dec 22, 2012
    24,796
    150
    Avon
    "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." — George Mason

    I agree with Mason on both his points. I saw "a few public officials" who fit that bill last Monday at the Statehouse.
     

    KG1

    Forgotten Man
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    66   0   0
    Jan 20, 2009
    25,633
    149
    I particularly like the smackdown directed at the 4th circuit in the last two paragraphs. Spot on.

    Enlightened judges may not like the language of the Constitution. They may think the language is outmoded and superseded by modern life. But it is a violation of their oath of office to re-write the document to their liking or ignore provisions with which they disagree.

    The Founders wisely provided a mechanism to amend the Constitution. It involves Congress, the states and voting. It does not include 10 politicians in black robes.
    *Emphasis mine
     

    gregr

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 1, 2016
    4,300
    113
    West-Central
    I particularly like the smackdown directed at the 4th circuit in the last two paragraphs. Spot on.

    *Emphasis mine

    :yesway:

    My favorite part was this:

    Ignoring "militia," "arms" and "shall not infringe" the court sounded more like Chief Justice Oprah Winfrey when it concluded, "Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protection to the weapons of war."
    Only the justices don't have to extend anything, the 2nd Amendment already protects "weapons of war." Their job was to stop an obvious infringement upon that right.
     

    KG1

    Forgotten Man
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    66   0   0
    Jan 20, 2009
    25,633
    149
    It would be beyond my comprehension if this recent ruling by the 4th circuit isn't overturned on the SCOTUS level. In doing so SCOTUS would have to take a big step in specifically acknowledging that 2nd Amendment rights do indeed include keeping and bearing military style firearms. They in a round about way already did so by previously deciding that an SBS wasn't afforded that distinction because it wasn't a firearm commonly in use by the military.
     

    gregr

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 1, 2016
    4,300
    113
    West-Central
    It would be beyond my comprehension if this recent ruling by the 4th circuit isn't overturned on the SCOTUS level. In doing so SCOTUS would have to take a big step in specifically acknowledging that 2nd Amendment rights do indeed include keeping and bearing military style firearms. They in a round about way already did so by previously deciding that an SBS wasn't afforded that distinction because it wasn't a firearm commonly in use by the military.

    While what you say is truth, keep in mind, there is also the obvious fact that, the only difference between the "military style" weapons and many common hunting rifles is their cosmetic appearance. Were anyone, courts or politicians, successful in banning a weapon based on appearance when the functionality is the same as another weapon, it opens the door for massive bans on similar type weapons. All of this is unconstitutional, and therefore illegal.
     

    Bill of Rights

    Cogito, ergo porto.
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Apr 26, 2008
    18,096
    77
    Where's the bacon?
    It would be beyond my comprehension if this recent ruling by the 4th circuit isn't overturned on the SCOTUS level. In doing so SCOTUS would have to take a big step in specifically acknowledging that 2nd Amendment rights do indeed include keeping and bearing military style firearms. They in a round about way already did so by previously deciding that an SBS wasn't afforded that distinction because it wasn't a firearm commonly in use by the military.

    SCOTUS has to "grant cert" (agree to hear the case) to have a chance of overturning it, and that's never a certainty. Even if they do, IIRC, the SBS *was* in use in the military, but Mr. Miller was dead by the time the case got to the Court, so they made their ruling in the absence of any testimony from the petitioner. Only the respondant spoke, and in essence, got summary judgment. Even (or especially) if Gorusch is confirmed, they may not want to hear this case and put themselves in the position of having to make that decision. You already know that Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan don't want to go there. Breyer probably doesn't either. Roberts, Thomas, and Alito would. If Gorusch is confirmed and does want to hear it, that would leave Kennedy as the deciding factor.

    Sure would be nice if the Supreme Court was solely composed of people who understood and respected the original intent of the Founders, as expressed in the Constitution.

    Blessings,
    Bill
     

    KG1

    Forgotten Man
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    66   0   0
    Jan 20, 2009
    25,633
    149
    SCOTUS has to "grant cert" (agree to hear the case) to have a chance of overturning it, and that's never a certainty. Even if they do, IIRC, the SBS *was* in use in the military, but Mr. Miller was dead by the time the case got to the Court, so they made their ruling in the absence of any testimony from the petitioner. Only the respondant spoke, and in essence, got summary judgment. Even (or especially) if Gorusch is confirmed, they may not want to hear this case and put themselves in the position of having to make that decision. You already know that Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan don't want to go there. Breyer probably doesn't either. Roberts, Thomas, and Alito would. If Gorusch is confirmed and does want to hear it, that would leave Kennedy as the deciding factor.

    Sure would be nice if the Supreme Court was solely composed of people who understood and respected the original intent of the Founders, as expressed in the Constitution.

    Blessings,
    Bill
    I would agree that SCOTUS has'nt wanted to "go there" specifically to avoid having to make a game braking/making decision before or not (ROE v. WADE). I think choosing to not "grant cert" on something like this would be shirking their duty to the Constitution IMO.
     

    edporch

    Master
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    25   0   0
    Oct 19, 2010
    4,663
    149
    Indianapolis
    When the country was first formed, each state had it's own army.
    This was partially for the reason as a check and balance against a tyrannical federal government.

    If the federal government had the power to control arms in the individual states, the federal government would've had the power to disarm any state army by federal law.

    Hence, the 2nd Amendment.
    "A WELL REGULATED militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,..."
    "
    - The phrase "WELL-REGULATED" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it."


    "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

    IN OTHER WORDS, if the federal government could "infringe" on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, they could prevent a state from having a properly equipped militia.

    SO, IN THE ORIGINALIST SENSE, ALL FEDERAL FIREARM LAWS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
    BUT AS MUCH AS IT MAY SUCK, IN THE ORIGINALIST SENSE EACH STATE HAS THE RIGHT TO REGULATE ARMS WITHIN THEIR STATE.

    Meaning of the phrase "well-regulated"
     

    KG1

    Forgotten Man
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    66   0   0
    Jan 20, 2009
    25,633
    149
    When the country was first formed, each state had it's own army.
    This was partially for the reason as a check and balance against a tyrannical federal government.

    If the federal government had the power to control arms in the individual states, the federal government would've had the power to disarm any state army by federal law.

    Hence, the 2nd Amendment.
    "A WELL REGULATED militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,..."
    "
    - The phrase "WELL-REGULATED" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it."


    "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

    IN OTHER WORDS, if the federal government could "infringe" on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, they could prevent a state from having a properly equipped militia.

    SO, IN THE ORIGINALIST SENSE, ALL FEDERAL FIREARM LAWS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
    BUT AS MUCH AS IT MAY SUCK, IN THE ORIGINALIST SENSE EACH STATE HAS THE RIGHT TO REGULATE ARMS WITHIN THEIR STATE.

    Meaning of the phrase "well-regulated"
    So in the originalist sense the State has a right to insure that all firearms are in proper working order (well regulated) and not "regulated" as in the "restrictions placed upon" Correct?
     

    edporch

    Master
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    25   0   0
    Oct 19, 2010
    4,663
    149
    Indianapolis
    So in the originalist sense the State has a right to insure that all firearms are in proper working order (well regulated) and not "regulated" as in the "restrictions placed upon" Correct?

    NO, that to allow the militias in the several states to be properly equipped and in good working order, the federal government can't infringe on the right to bear arms.
     

    gregr

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 1, 2016
    4,300
    113
    West-Central
    So in the originalist sense the State has a right to insure that all firearms are in proper working order (well regulated) and not "regulated" as in the "restrictions placed upon" Correct?

    Well regulated means well functioning, and it refers to the militia...
     

    MTC

    Expert
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 14, 2009
    1,356
    38
    ...
    - The phrase "WELL-REGULATED" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it."
    Needs to be pounded into some skulls.
     
    Top Bottom