Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Depends on how you interpret 'well regulated'...from what Ive read, in the time this was written, 'regulated' did not mean what it does today...
Besides that, think about it, what would the purpose of such an amendment be, if the militia was regulated by the very Govt it was created to keep a watchful eye on?! Point is, the militia would not be effective if the govt could restrict and regulate them! It defeats the entire purpose of the amendment!
For all those interested in delving into the meaning and intent behind the words used in the 2A document, here is a helpful discussion on the subject, guided by Constitutional experts Jeffrey Rosen (President and CEO of the National Constitution Center) and Jack Rakove (Pulitzer Prize winning author and professor of political science and law at Stanford University): https://constitutioncenter.org/image...CNN_Aug_11.pdf
Excerpt quoted from above link.
Interesting. I did not know about that description of "well regulated". Still, in order to be well-organized, a group of armed individuals would still need some sort of training and discipline even if those were self-created within the community and not the government. I suppose it's like your mother and father teaching you self-discipline, something you would not need the government to regulate you.
This leads to a point I made in my original post. I wondered how to draw a fine line between official and unofficial law enforcement. So let's say we resolved the individual's right to bear arms. We also resolved a home or business owner's right to defend his/her property with a firearm as ruled in the Heller case. However does the 2nd Amendment with its Militia clause leave any provision for a group of armed individuals, not necessarily trained in law enforcement, to band together and roam around public streets with their firearms? Could a government strike these down and pass laws prohibiting the creation of such "posses" by stating that the 2A only provides for the right to bear arms but not to use them in certain manners? Where is the fine line between official and non-official public order maintenance? I don't think this has been resolved yet. What do others think?
Interesting. I did not know about that description of "well regulated". Still, in order to be well-organized, a group of armed individuals would still need some sort of training and discipline even if those were self-created within the community and not the government. I suppose it's like your mother and father teaching you self-discipline, something you would not need the government to regulate you.
This leads to a point I made in my original post. I wondered how to draw a fine line between official and unofficial law enforcement. So let's say we resolved the individual's right to bear arms. We also resolved a home or business owner's right to defend his/her property with a firearm as ruled in the Heller case. However does the 2nd Amendment with its Militia clause leave any provision for a group of armed individuals, not necessarily trained in law enforcement, to band together and roam around public streets with their firearms? Could a government strike these down and pass laws prohibiting the creation of such "posses" by stating that the 2A only provides for the right to bear arms but not to use them in certain manners? Where is the fine line between official and non-official public order maintenance? I don't think this has been resolved yet. What do others think?
In my opinion, this 'militia' would be above law enforcement, (police would have no authority over them).
Its the only way they could be effective really. Law enforcement is going to enforce laws that our govt creates...so naturally the militia would have to be above them.
In my opinion, this 'militia' would be above law enforcement, (police would have no authority over them).
Its the only way they could be effective really. Law enforcement is going to enforce laws that our govt creates...so naturally the militia would have to be above them.
Can you please state how you might differentiate between a militia and vigilantes?
Why stop cutting at the militia clause? It suits your purposes?
Cut some more and then someone would have room to add........
All Heller does is to confirm the right of the individual to own a gun in their home.
Yes, it is factually true that the Heller Decision is specific to the use of guns in the home. The reason being, that was the issue before the Supreme Court.
Dick Heller was a police officer living and working in the District of Columbia, and he sought to be able to own and keep a private handgun in his home in D.C. At the time, all D.C. residents were prohibited to own a handgun and store it in the home without a registration certificate. D.C. denied Dick Heller's application for a registration certificate. He sued, and the result is that the court said D.C. had violated his Second Amendment rights to keep a handgun in his home, overturning the defacto handgun ban in the District of Columbia.
The Heller decision is not specific to handguns outside the home because the respondent was not suing to clarify his right to carry a handgun outside the home. As a D.C. police officer, he carried his service weapon outside the home, so the issue was moot.
Since the respondent was not asking for the Courts to clarify handgun carry outside the home, the Justices writing the decision did not speak to that concern, only to the concern the respondent was suing ove, which was his Second Amendment right to own and keep a handgun within his home.
The subject asked was the subject answered.
Regarding handguns outside the home, 41 of the 50 states are "shall issue" states or require no permission at all. If the Second Amendment did not protect the right to carry a gun outside the home, you can be sure the Supreme Court would have prohibited that in those 41 states long ago.
All Heller did was tell the Washington D.C. and state with similar handgun bans, their bans were illegal under the Second Amendment and that they had to allow mentally competent people without felony convictions to excercise their Constitutional right to own and store a handgun in their home.
Last edited by Igor Blevin; 08-30-2020 at 10:32 AM..
Location: New Albany, Indiana (Greater Louisville)
11,974 posts, read 25,476,450 times
Reputation: 12187
Also 2A doesn't use word 'guns' but 'arms', by definition any type of weapon. In the context of preventing tyranny that would mean civilians are allowed to same weapons as govt. Again, that made perfect sense in 1776 and posed little threat to public safety. Today even most ardent 2A supporters acknowledge that an 18 year old citizen can't be allowed to buy an atomic bomb at Wal Mart. The risk to public safety is far higher than the risk posed by tyranny. So we all agree that 2A in it's purest form should not be allowed today because of how much weapons have changed since 1776. The question is where the line in the sand should be drawn. Today the line in the sand being debated involves high capacity rapid firing guns. Far left would like for the debate to move towards how much to restrict all guns, though few called for a total gun ban. The far right seems to want guns up to fully automatic to be available with minimal background checks though anything more should remain only for the military.
Interesting. I did not know about that description of "well regulated". Still, in order to be well-organized, a group of armed individuals would still need some sort of training and discipline even if those were self-created within the community and not the government. I suppose it's like your mother and father teaching you self-discipline, something you would not need the government to regulate you.
This leads to a point I made in my original post. I wondered how to draw a fine line between official and unofficial law enforcement. So let's say we resolved the individual's right to bear arms. We also resolved a home or business owner's right to defend his/her property with a firearm as ruled in the Heller case. However does the 2nd Amendment with its Militia clause leave any provision for a group of armed individuals, not necessarily trained in law enforcement, to band together and roam around public streets with their firearms? Could a government strike these down and pass laws prohibiting the creation of such "posses" by stating that the 2A only provides for the right to bear arms but not to use them in certain manners? Where is the fine line between official and non-official public order maintenance? I don't think this has been resolved yet. What do others think?
Your questions about groups of private militias are valid, but IMHO they miss one of the fundamental points about the Heller decision.
The Heller decision did not codify its ruling to groups. It identified an INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms. So it applies to each American, individually. So a single individual has the right to keep and bear arms That is why 41 states have shall issue laws that allow a single individual to conceal carry. Most also allow open carry.
So regarding your question, a group of armed individuals is protected under the Second Amendment, because each individual is protected alone. Protection does not require a group. But since each individual in the group has Second Amendment rights, then the group as a whole has Second Amendment rights collectively being made up of a group of individuals exerecising their rights.
My point is, the group is irrelevant. One person. 10 people. A thousand people. As long as each person is mentally competent and has never been conviced of a felony, each individual and the group as a whole is exercising their right to the Second Amendment.
The thoughts of the Founders have been made clear so far as I can see. Every citizen has the right to go armed in his own defense and defense of his State. This view of the grounds for the 2nd Amendment precludes any argument as to an individual's right being based on his/her condition of possible military servitude from whatever source it might spring.
Igor Blevin has quoted the more forthright views on the subject and I can't imagine a "professor", "lawyer", or judge making words any more plain.
It seems to me this debate is becoming more and more focused upon the decision of a case regarding one man in the District of Columbia which isn't even a state so that in the future it might hold little meaning for those who rely on others to direct them. Hopefully at some point the thread will return to focus on the 2A.
censusdata:
As has been stated the 2A is to guarantee an individuals right to his own defense. It is unlikely any individual who would detonate a thermonuclear device and subsequently be vaporized along with his antagonists might be considered acting in his own defense. I'm old enough to remember a time back in the 60's and 70's when the debate was about "Saturday Night Specials", which were labelled as "cheap" handguns which should be banned.
As Hamilton stated in the Federalist 29, the right of the citizen of a state to carry arms was expected to be equal to the ability of the government to arm it's soldiers.
The original constitution did not enumerate these "rights" of individuals because the Founding Fathers thought it was so obvious that all individuals possessed these rights that it would not be necessary to list them in the constitution.
However, a decade or so after the constitution was signed, the FF decided to "amend" the constitution to include these individual rights just in case someone at some later date may question why the rights of the individuals weren't spelled out in the constitution.
In other words, the FF decided to list these individual rights which enumerated the rights that the individuals inherently possessed and which provided the individuals protection from their own government from infringing on these rights.
Specifically, the 2A was about protecting the right of the PEOPLE to own and bear "arms", just as the other nine amendments were about protecting other inherent God given rights of the PEOPLE from infringement by their government. That's why it's called the "Bill of Rights" , not the Bill of Restrictions.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
