The Second Amendment

**OCA** · 06-05-2012, 02:18 PM

Originally Posted by red state

We could dwell on "what ifs" all we want and I'll get back on that later. With this, I apologize for such a lengthy reply but the topic is so important to our livelihoods and to the heritage of this great Nation.

Firstly, I would like to stress my strong disagreement with ANY and ALL restrictions/regulations to guns (of ANY kind)...if such items would not be a concern for NATIONAL security (such as a nuclear weapon or biological hazard). Capsules/test tubes containing a deadly bacteria or virus was not foreseen by our forefathers and neither the A or H bomb but this is where common sense and safety comes into play. A tank or machine/mini gun is not a danger to our national security and we've even seen tanks being used in crimes (does anyone recall several years ago)? It can be dealt with and although there is dangers locally, none of these weapons are what most of us would identify as a threat to NATIONAL security. If the nut next door has a bigger gun and more guns than I....I may feel a bit uncomfortable BUT as long as I have the right to buy, own, carry and use mine, he feels as bit uncomfortable as well. What I would not like is being disarmed (knowing full well the possibility in this crazy world, that some nut DOES have a weapon and I do not). We walk a fine line when we allow restrictions/regulations/bans. I live in the South and the thoughts of what happened in New Orleans during Katrina still bothers me. It was WRONG and thank Christ for those in our military who refused to follow the lead of local law enforcement by disarming LEGAL/LAW ABIDING citizens while the filth of New Orleans fired upon the unarmed, rescue vehicles and were even left to rob, rape and murder those who had been disarmed. As for the clever comment by our left leaning friend above regarding guns on planes....I sure wish those heroes who went down in 9/11 had been carrying! In fact, I would dare say that it would have been better for everyone to be armed rather than what happened with an unarmed group. On the other hand, I could possibly see a large, potentially international means of travel such as this as being a threat to NATIONAL security. Still, my thoughts go back to "what if".

A "WHAT IF" that is very easy to identify with is an unarmed group of people on a plane and a madman or mu-SLUM group gets up, shows their weapon and makes their demands. We've seen this...it doesn't go well and I'm sure those with any intellect will agree. Next is the "What IF" finds the same group settling down for a nice flight when a threat presents itself. We've seen this before as well. Does anyone recall the lady politician in the GREAT State of Texas? I believe she was dining at a restaurant (legally armed) when a guy with ill intent (also armed) came to call. He was dispatched or silenced fairly quickly and if memory serves me correctly, she's the same politician who proposed that ALL legal citizens arm themselves (by mandate). I believe the crime rate has been proven to go down in such areas BUT even if it is proven otherwise, I would rather be armed than not and I'd feel much better knowing that the guy next to me was armed (visibly armed). I can not only keep an eye out on him but those with ill intent can see that this robbery would be anything but taking candy from a baby. Of course, I'm biased because I'm a RED STATER who has lived in true freedom my entire life. I have no problem with those who rather not arm themselves, hunt, worship Christ in this Christian Nation or rather not speak their mind with boldness and without fear of offending others....just don't try and prevent me from doing so!

In closing, The Second Amendment should actually be the FIRST because after the freedom that it provides, all other freedoms follow.

God bless America and those who fight tooth and nail to preserve Her...I just hope it doesn't come to fighting with only tooth and nail.

How about just a simple background check to make sure some douchebag has all his marbles? i.e. the idiot at VT who had been diagnosed as a nutso over and over again but just a rudimentary check was not done at the gun shop that might've prevented him from gaining access to a weapon.

Other than that I agree with ya.

**ConHog** · 06-05-2012, 02:43 PM

Originally Posted by Little-Acorn

Most of California's gun laws are unconstitutinal, violating the 2nd amendment, IMHO. That's true of most gun laws in most states, actually, plus most Federal gun laws starting with the 1934 National Firearms Act, the 1968 Gun Control Act, and others like them.

The 2nd amendment is simple and clear: For such-and-such reasons, ordinary people's right to own and carry guns and other such weapons can't be taken away or restricted.

The extent to which anti-gun people bend over backward and twist themselves into strange pretzel shapes to "find" bizarrre "meanings" in it, defies all credibility sometimes.

The people who wrote and ratified the 2nd, could have put in exceptions for "more than ten guns per household", or "Feds can't restrict guns but states still can", or "except around schools or post offices", etc. But they didn't. And that omission was careful and deliberate.

The reasons why you should be able to own and carry a gun are many. Knowing a victim may be carrying, can make a thief or mugger think twice. It can also make a corrupt sheriff who wants your property or your daughter, think twice. Or make a poisonous legislature who wants to put, say, all blacks into chains or all Jews into an oven, think twice if those blacks or Jews (and/or their friends) own guns and regularly have them with them.

But the main reason you should always have the right to own and carry guns, is because the Great American Experiment assumed that individual people will do a better job running their own lives, making their own decisions, making mistakes, taking the consequences themselves, and learning from them; than an all-powerful government will do making those decisions for those people. And that includes making decisions on how and when to protect yourself and your loved ones... which necessarily includes YOU deciding what instrument(s) you will use to do it.

The freedom to own and carry any gun you want, is the ultimate expression of the sovereignity of the private citizen. Nobody (and that means NOBODY) can try to mess with him without facing the severest consequences. The sovereign citizen's own decisions, good or bad, are the ultimate determinant of his fate and his life. And his ability to own and carry deadly weapons, capable of harming or even killing those around him and subject ONLY to his own personal decision, is what makes sure it stays that way.

Even the possiblity that a man with bad judgment might use his weapon to unjustly threaten, injure or kill an innocent person, is not sufficient reason to take away EVERYONE'S right to own and carry such weapons. The Framers made the hard decision that even with the occasional (and inevitable) injury or death of an innocent person at the hands of a careless or criminal gun owner, the right of all people to be gun owners must be held sacrosanct... that society would be better off under those circumstances, than under a system where government could restrict citizens' rights to own and carry weapons. Partly because the Framers knew that the power to restrict that right, was ultimately the power to take it away completely - and the Framers knew that society would be worse off under those conditions, than under the conditions where an occasional mistake or criminal's act could result in an injury, possibly a fatal one.

Under the Great American Experiment, people were to be free to make their own decisions and take the consequences of them... including the bad or wrong decisions. Assigning third parties to make those decisions for them, would make them worse off, not better. And so government's only function, was restricted to only protecting those rights of the people. NOT making decisions to "help" them... even if some people thought govt "helping" people was a GOOD idea.

In a very real sense, the right to own and carry a gun is the ultimate manifestation of the Great American Experiment - the ultimate manifestation of freedom. Because it is the best way to ensure that you are left alone to make your own decisions, even if some else doesn't want you to. And only if you violate someone else's rights - say, by injuring or killing an innocent person, for whatever reason - can your own ultimate rights be taken away. Not because you MIGHT - that's not a good enough reason, because anybody might. Only because you DID.

And the Framers were careful to make the 2nd amendment part of the Supreme Law of the Land, to make sure it stayed that way.

Not quite correct.

In 1776 "bear arms" meant "own arms." It didn't mean "carry guns around" Why in Philiadelphia at the time carrying a gun in town was prohibited.

**Little-Acorn** · 06-05-2012, 02:46 PM

Originally Posted by red state

In closing, The Second Amendment should actually be the FIRST because after the freedom that it provides, all other freedoms follow.

Q: Why does the Constitution have a Second Amendment?
A: In case the government doesn't obey the first one.

- from a famous conservative pundit

**Little-Acorn** · 06-05-2012, 02:52 PM

Originally Posted by ConHog

Not quite correct.

In 1776 "bear arms" meant "own arms." It didn't mean "carry guns around"

That's laughably false. Where do you get this stuff?

In the phrase "keep and bear arms", "keep" means to own them, "bear" means to carry them (or at least have them with you), ready to use. And the meanings were the same in 1776 (or in 1791, when that phrase became law) as they are today.

You might want to look through this essay for backup:
http://constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

.

**Surf Fishing Guru** · 06-05-2012, 05:34 PM

Originally Posted by ConHog

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.

Here's one I have a beef with SOME conservatives about. Nowhere in that does it say the government can't outlaw certain types of weapons. It merely says that they can't keep us from owning weapons in general.

Do I believe that means the government can outlaw ownership of everything but revolvers and lever rod rifles? No of course not; but where the line should be drawn is a separate issue from "can the government in fact draw a line?"

Correct. Because the "object' of the Amendment was to perpetuate the general militia concept, the protection sphere of the Amendment covers the types of arms that are useful to that end. The courts have done a decent job (IMNSHO) establishing the criteria to decide if a type of arm (not the person) has 2nd Amendment protection and that is, following Miller (using Aymette) with Heller; . . . if they are of the type of arms in common use at the time, are the types usually employed in civilized warfare and that constitute the ordinary military equipment and can contribute to the common defense.

Dangerous and unusual weapons deemed unsuitable for those purposes can be restricted. Aymette said, after offering the above criteria for protection:

-

"If the citizens have these arms in their hands, they are prepared in the best possible manner to repel any encroachments upon their rights by those in authority. They need not, for such a purpose, the use of those weapons which are usually employed in private broils, and which are efficient only in the hands of the robber and the assassin. These weapons would be useless in war. They could not be employed advantageously in the common defence of the citizens. The right to keep and bear them, is not, therefore, secured by the constitution."

-

And Aymette offers what I consider good reasoning for that criteria (this flows into page 159, admittedly outside Miller's citation of page 158:

-

"A thousand inventions for inflicting death may be imagined, which might come under the appellation of an "arm" in the figurative <small class="pg" id="pg159">(p.159) </small>use of that term, and which could by no possibility be rendered effectual in war, or in the least degree aid in the common defence. Would it not be absurd to contend that a constitutional provision, securing to the citizens the means of their common defence, should be construed to extend to such weapons, although they manifestly would not contribute to that end, merely because, in the hands of an assassin, they might take away life?

The legislature, therefore, have a right to prohibit the wearing, or keeping weapons dangerous to the peace and safety of the citizens, and which are not usual in civilized warfare, or would not contribute to the common defence. The right to keep and bear arms for the common defence is a great political right. It respects the citizens on the one hand and the rulers on the other. And although this right must be inviolably preserved, yet, it does not follow that the legislature is prohibited altogether from passing laws regulating the manner in which these arms may be employed."

-

Given the Miller Court's near exclusive reliance on Aymette's reasoning to decide the protection of Miller's sawed-off shotgun I see nothing to stop us from thinking this continuation of the reasoning can't be used to instruct us now (or at least provide a well grounded debate point).

Originally Posted by ConHog

On a related note, I also don't believe the 2nd means the government can't restrict where we can carry guns.

Well, I would re-phrase that; the 2nd Amendment doesn't afford a citizen an absolute immunity against laws that regulate time and place. Even under strict scrutiny I think the government could sustain [some] laws prohibiting guns in "sensitive places" (Heller).

Originally Posted by ConHog

In the time frame the COTUS was written Bear Arms meant own weapons,

"Bear" has always had a military/combat connotation; as Aymette explains; "The words "bear arms" too, have reference to their military use, and were not employed to mean wearing them about the person as part of the dress."

My personal belief is that the "right to bear arms" is referring to the ultimate reality of conferred powers and retained rights and the government exercising those powers only with the consent of the governed. The concept of "consent of the governed" includes the reciprocal right to rescind that consent to be governed . . . The citizens, being the final arbiter of the legitimacy of government, retain the right to throw off a government that is no longer operating according to the principles of its establishment.

Originally Posted by ConHog

and in fact in many colonial cities of the era it was illegal to carry a gun in town.

That does not have any implications for the 2nd Amendment because the federal amendment was not being enforced against state/local laws.

**Little-Acorn** · 06-05-2012, 07:21 PM

Originally Posted by Surf Fishing Guru

Because the "object' of the Amendment was to perpetuate the general militia concept,

No, the "object" of the amendment was to explicitly forbid any government in the U.S. from taking away or restricting ordinary people's right to own and carry guns and other such weapons. Militias were mentioned only as an explanatory reason, not as a restricting condition.

the protection sphere of the Amendment covers the types of arms that are useful to that end.

And all other arms a person might own and use, whether for military purposes or not.

The courts have done a decent job (IMNSHO) establishing the criteria to decide if a type of arm (not the person) has 2nd Amendment protection and that is, following Miller

You're joking, right?

The Miller decision was so confused and self-contradictory, that it will likely be thrown out the next time it is re-examined by the Supreme Court. This is the reason why lawyers have been VERY careful to never bring any challenge that directly invokes it, before the Supremes. The anti-gun people know they would be cutting their own throats if they did, and would undo all their careful work for generations to disarm the American people.

US v. Miller specified in one part of the decision that weapons that were similar to weapons used in the military at the time, were protected by the 2nd amendment. But then it said that Jack Miller's short-barrelled shotgun wasn't such a weapon - which was false since short-barrelled shotguns had been used extensively by both sides in the most recent major war, World War I, where they were referred to as "trench guns".

And ever since then, the courts have gotten even more topsy-turvy, frequently prosecuting people because they had military style weapons, in direct conflict of the Miller decision that said military-style weapons ("assault rifles" etc.) were protected by the 2nd amendment!

This is what you call "a decent job" by the courts?

Dangerous and unusual weapons deemed unsuitable for those purposes can be restricted. Aymette said, after offering the above criteria for protection:

-

"If the citizens have these arms in their hands, they are prepared in the best possible manner to repel any encroachments upon their rights by those in authority. They need not, for such a purpose, the use of those weapons which are usually employed in private broils, and which are efficient only in the hands of the robber and the assassin. These weapons would be useless in war. They could not be employed advantageously in the common defence of the citizens. The right to keep and bear them, is not, therefore, secured by the constitution."

You are doing a good job of demonstrating what I mentioned earlier in this thread: Trying to unconstitutionally restrict people's rights by bending over backward and twisting youself into strange pretzel shapes to find "meanings" where there aren't any in the 2nd amendment.

Or were you about to point out the language in the 2nd that states that military-style weapons are protected but others aren't?

And Aymette offers what I consider good reasoning for that criteria

Aymette was a clever diversion by government lawyers in the Miller case. It was invalid since Aymette referred only state law (and not even the state Miller came from) - the second Tennessee state Constitution of 1835, which was no longer in force by the time Miller was charged. It stated that only white people in Tennessee had the right to keep and bear arms, and then only "for the common defence" - restrictions which are nowhere to be found in the U.S Constitution and its 2nd amendment.

But since neither Miller, nor any of his lawyers, nor anyone at all, showed up for the defense on the day of Miller's Supreme Court trial, such diversions (and several other falsehoods) presented by the government's high-powered prosecution lawyers went unchallenged, and were rubber-stamped into the Opinon of the Court.

It was one of the more spectacular miscarriages of justice the legal world has seen - one which anti-gun lawyers have been careful to keep out of any subsequent court, ever since.... for good reason.

My personal belief is that the "right to bear arms" is referring to the ultimate reality of conferred powers and retained rights and the government exercising those powers only with the consent of the governed. The concept of "consent of the governed" includes the reciprocal right to rescind that consent to be governed . . . The citizens, being the final arbiter of the legitimacy of government, retain the right to throw off a government that is no longer operating according to the principles of its establishment.

Absolutely true. And they can rescind it any time, using the same method they used to enact it in 1791: Another Constitutional amendment.

But they have chosen (for more than 200 years) not to do so. So the 2nd amendment remains fully in force, as originally written: A flat ban on any government taking away or restricting the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons, regardless of skin color, purpose, or military affiliation.

That does not have any implications for the 2nd Amendment because the federal amendment was not being enforced against state/local laws.

While you are searching for the language in the 2nd that restricts it to only military weapons, you might also want to point out the part that restricts its ban to only the Fed govt, but permits states and localities to infringe the right to keep and bear arms.

Good luck with that.

As I mentioned to ConHog, you might want to look through this essay, to help find those mysterious sections in the 2nd amendment:
http://constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

For some reason, ConHog hasn't gotten back to me with his comments on it. But I have faith.

**Surf Fishing Guru** · 06-06-2012, 02:02 AM

Originally Posted by Little-Acorn

No, the "object" of the amendment was to explicitly forbid any government in the U.S. from taking away or restricting ordinary people's right to own and carry guns and other such weapons.

No, that is the protected means to achieve the object.

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:TrackMoves/> <w:TrackFormatting/> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w

oNotPromoteQF/> <w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther> <w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w

ontGrowAutofit/> <w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/> <w

ontVertAlignCellWithSp/> <w

ontBreakConstrainedForcedTables/> <w

ontVertAlignInTxbx/> <w:Word11KerningPairs/> <w:CachedColBalance/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> <m:mathPr> <m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/> <m:brkBin m:val="before"/> <m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/> <m:smallFrac m:val="off"/> <m:dispDef/> <m:lMargin m:val="0"/> <m:rMargin m:val="0"/> <m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/> <m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/> <m:intLim m:val="subSup"/> <m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/> </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]-->To me, the primary object (intent) of the "declaration and guarantee" of the Amendment was to ensure that both the states and federal government will forever have at their disposal a force of citizens, available at a moment’s notice, mustering with an appropriate weapon supplied by themselves and an appropriate amount of ammunition along with a couple days provisions in a knapsack.

The duty of this force of citizens, when so assembled by the lawful authority, is to defend the state and to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions. That object, to ensure that such conditions continue that allow the actual formation of an effective military force in a matter of minutes, drawn from the butchers, bakers and candlestick makers of the community, is impossible to achieve without the privately armed citizens coming together.

The secondary (not necessarily subordinate) object is the people reserving the power to enforce the Constitution, protect their unalienable rights and if it comes to it, enable the people to exert their original right to rescind their consent to be governed. Once the government violates the principles of its establishment it is no longer "the government established by the Constitution" it is then something else, acting illegitimately, unable to claim the supreme, preemptive powers and protections granted to it by the Constitution.

That primary object does create a scope of protection as no right is absolute in an ordered society. The secondary object, if ever acted upon, assumes whatever legitimate restraints that can be said to be permitted on the citizens right to arms are vacated because there is no longer a lawful authority over the people.

Originally Posted by Little-Acorn

Militias were mentioned only as an explanatory reason, not as a restricting condition.

Which is exactly what I said . . . Why the right was secured does inform as to its scope of protection, which if "interpreted" correctly and legitimately, will not create a "restricting condition" but a standard to use to decide the legitimacy of challenged law.

Originally Posted by Little-Acorn

Originally Posted by Surf Fishing Guru

The courts have done a decent job (IMNSHO) establishing the criteria to decide if a type of arm (not the person) has 2nd Amendment protection and that is, following Miller (using Aymette) with Heller; . . .

You're joking, right?

The Miller decision was so confused and self-contradictory, that it will likely be thrown out the next time it is re-examined by the Supreme Court. . . .

Miller isn't going anywhere. I'm not saying it is judicial brilliance but it did advance the individual right in a way that later Courts could affirm the individual right without any militia attachment without disturbing Miller. It isn't perfect, it is very poorly written and clumsy and IMO, would be troublesome except for its cite of Aymette which is the primer to "unlock" Miller's total meaning.

Originally Posted by Little-Acorn

And ever since then, the courts have gotten even more topsy-turvy, frequently prosecuting people because they had military style weapons, in direct conflict of the Miller decision that said military-style weapons ("assault rifles" etc.) were protected by the 2nd amendment!

Those lower federal court opinions beginning with Cases and Tot in 1942 invented the 'militia right" and 'state's right" and the general "collective right" interpretations of the 2nd Amendment. In Cases, the 1st circuit offered a true and honest reading of Miller (including military weapons) and then proceeded to dismiss and ignore the clear determinations demanded by Miller. These perversions and their progeny infected the courts for 66 years until Heller invalidated them and returned some constitutional sanity to the issue of the 2nd Amendment in US courts.

SCOTUS has NEVER wavered from the opinion that the 2nd Amendment merely recognizes and secures a pre-existing individual right, exercisable without regard to one's militia attachment status. They have re-re-re-affirmed that the right to arms is not granted by the 2nd Amendment and thus is not dependent on the Constitution in any manner to exist.

You need to partition the lower federal courts and SCOTUS in your thinking now. The lower federal courts were on a tangent disconnected from the Constitution and the fundamental principles of conferred powers and retained rights.

Originally Posted by Little-Acorn

This is what you call "a decent job" by the courts?

Given that Art I, § 9, cl 15 & 16 powers have been extinguished since 1916? Yes.

Originally Posted by Little-Acorn

You are doing a good job of demonstrating what I mentioned earlier in this thread: Trying to unconstitutionally restrict people's rights by bending over backward and twisting youself into strange pretzel shapes to find "meanings" where there aren't any in the 2nd amendment.

The unyielding principle is that of conferred powers and retained rights. I endeavor to have my positions / arguments conform to that above all else. I don't claim a right to the "arms" that are encompassed within the grant of power to raise and support armies (missiles, artillery, warcraft and armor, bombs and certainly WMD's). I only claim as a right that which has NOT been conferred to government. No power was ever conferred to the federal government to even form a thought about the personal arms of the private citizen. I don't claim a 1st Amendment right to print my own US Currency or enter into treaties with foreign nations but I do claim the right to speak and write upon all subjects that my mind cares to contemplate.

We the People have no "right" to those things that We the People have surrendered . . . until we rescind our consent to be governed and reclaim the powers we had conferred . . .

Originally Posted by Little-Acorn

Or were you about to point out the language in the 2nd that states that military-style weapons are protected but others aren't?

Don't need to.

Originally Posted by Little-Acorn

Aymette was a clever diversion by government lawyers in the Miller case. It was invalid since Aymette referred only state law . . .

SCOTUS looks to state cases all the time for reasoning . . . Aymette serves that purpose well.

Originally Posted by Little-Acorn

But since neither Miller, nor any of his lawyers, nor anyone at all, showed up for the defense on the day of Miller's Supreme Court trial, such diversions (and several other falsehoods) presented by the government's high-powered prosecution lawyers went unchallenged, and were rubber-stamped into the Opinon of the Court.

I think given the fact that there was no appearance for the appellees that Miller came out pretty good. Having read the government brief it is clear the Court didn't rubber stamp anything. You are welcome to quote what you think is so damaging in Miller to the "individual right possessed without any militia attachment" interpretation that was affirmed by Heller.

Originally Posted by Little-Acorn

It was one of the more spectacular miscarriages of justice the legal world has seen - one which anti-gun lawyers have been careful to keep out of any subsequent court, ever since.... for good reason.

In my opinion it wasn't revisited because at its core, it proves our side of the argument. The miscarriages were done in the lower federal courts and they and their disingenuous rewriting of Miller was serving their purpose of extinguishing the claim of 2nd Amendment violations by individual citizens in the courts of the USA.

Originally Posted by Little-Acorn

Absolutely true. And they can rescind it any time, using the same method they used to enact it in 1791: Another Constitutional amendment.

Not what I'm saying. I'm saying overthrow the entire government to restore the Constitution (or enact a new constitution, founded on new principles).

Originally Posted by Little-Acorn

While you are searching for the language in the 2nd that restricts it to only military weapons, you might also want to point out the part that restricts its ban to only the Fed govt, but permits states and localities to infringe the right to keep and bear arms.

It is settled that the first 8 Amendments were not enforceable upon the states until the 14th Amendment. Certainly there is no legal evidence that such an extension was ever recognized by any court prior to the 14th Amendment.

It is my opinion that the question is moot specifically for the right to arms because of the Constitution's promise to forever provide a republican form of government.

The republic that the framers established had, as a fundamental component, an armed citizenry possessing their arms without permission or regulation from government. These armed citizens were the reserve military force that BOTH the federal and state governments relied on for security. Because of this interdependence, neither entity could move against the armed citizens because that would deprive the other entity the defensive services of the people. This then created a federal power residing in the prerogative of the federal government to restrain a state from disarming its citizens (acting in an un-republican fashion). This concept is explained in Presser but not in a manner readily understood by modern people though.

Problem with that becoming the actual protection envelope of the right to arms in the courts was the SCOTUS decision called the Slaughterhouse Cases which gutted the privileges or immunities clause of the 14th Amendment. This was why real gun rights supporters were so excited when SCOTUS granted cert to the McDonald case instead of the NRA case. McDonald's primary argument was for SCOTUS to revisit Slaughterhouse, overturn it and hold that the Chicago laws violated the 2nd under the 14th's PoI clause instead of just falling back on due process. Read Thomas' brilliant concurrence for a view of what that would look like.

Originally Posted by Little-Acorn

As I mentioned to ConHog, you might want to look through this essay, to help find those mysterious sections in the 2nd amendment:
http://constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

Wow, haven't seen that in quite a while; thanks for the flashback! That is a true copy of the original; it has the request to keep modem bbs transmissions to 9600 baud!!!! LOL!

I was just getting started with on-line gun rights debate when that came out.

Good old USENET . . . talk.politics.guns, a couple thousand messages a day sometimes. It was fun back then, more fun than now actually . . . cutting my teeth back then when the gun rights side was the losing argument.

We really had nothing on our side, Sanford Levinson (liberal law professor) had come out with the Embarrassing Second Amendment which recast 2nd Amendment scholarship and emboldened pro-gun rights legal scholars to come out of the closet and we saw a growing body of gun-rights positive law review articles through the 90's. And then Emerson happened and the anti's apple cart got flipped over.

To return to the link you offered, actually I would rather see that just put away in the achieves and not put out for public consumption. It is really a razor's edge to engage in any textual analysis of the 2nd Amendment to try to show that a right exists . . . I would even call it dangerous. That Scailia engaged in it in Heller disgusted me. Heller should have been two pages including footnotes. All Scalia had to do to invalidate all the "militia right" / "state's right" / 'collective right" hogwash of Cases and Tot was just re-re-re-affirm that the right is not granted by the 2nd Amendment and is in no manner dependent upon the Constitution for its existence.

**OCA** · 06-06-2012, 06:59 AM

Originally Posted by Little-Acorn

That's laughably false. Where do you get this stuff?

In the phrase "keep and bear arms", "keep" means to own them, "bear" means to carry them (or at least have them with you), ready to use. And the meanings were the same in 1776 (or in 1791, when that phrase became law) as they are today.

You might want to look through this essay for backup:
http://constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

.

Didn't you know? Connie is GW reincarnate...........or does that GW stand for George Wallace? Not sure.

**ConHog** · 06-06-2012, 11:40 AM

Originally Posted by Little-Acorn

No, the "object" of the amendment was to explicitly forbid any government in the U.S. from taking away or restricting ordinary people's right to own and carry guns and other such weapons. Militias were mentioned only as an explanatory reason, not as a restricting condition.

And all other arms a person might own and use, whether for military purposes or not.

You're joking, right?

The Miller decision was so confused and self-contradictory, that it will likely be thrown out the next time it is re-examined by the Supreme Court. This is the reason why lawyers have been VERY careful to never bring any challenge that directly invokes it, before the Supremes. The anti-gun people know they would be cutting their own throats if they did, and would undo all their careful work for generations to disarm the American people.

US v. Miller specified in one part of the decision that weapons that were similar to weapons used in the military at the time, were protected by the 2nd amendment. But then it said that Jack Miller's short-barrelled shotgun wasn't such a weapon - which was false since short-barrelled shotguns had been used extensively by both sides in the most recent major war, World War I, where they were referred to as "trench guns".

And ever since then, the courts have gotten even more topsy-turvy, frequently prosecuting people because they had military style weapons, in direct conflict of the Miller decision that said military-style weapons ("assault rifles" etc.) were protected by the 2nd amendment!

This is what you call "a decent job" by the courts?

You are doing a good job of demonstrating what I mentioned earlier in this thread: Trying to unconstitutionally restrict people's rights by bending over backward and twisting youself into strange pretzel shapes to find "meanings" where there aren't any in the 2nd amendment.

Or were you about to point out the language in the 2nd that states that military-style weapons are protected but others aren't?

Aymette was a clever diversion by government lawyers in the Miller case. It was invalid since Aymette referred only state law (and not even the state Miller came from) - the second Tennessee state Constitution of 1835, which was no longer in force by the time Miller was charged. It stated that only white people in Tennessee had the right to keep and bear arms, and then only "for the common defence" - restrictions which are nowhere to be found in the U.S Constitution and its 2nd amendment.

But since neither Miller, nor any of his lawyers, nor anyone at all, showed up for the defense on the day of Miller's Supreme Court trial, such diversions (and several other falsehoods) presented by the government's high-powered prosecution lawyers went unchallenged, and were rubber-stamped into the Opinon of the Court.

It was one of the more spectacular miscarriages of justice the legal world has seen - one which anti-gun lawyers have been careful to keep out of any subsequent court, ever since.... for good reason.

Absolutely true. And they can rescind it any time, using the same method they used to enact it in 1791: Another Constitutional amendment.

But they have chosen (for more than 200 years) not to do so. So the 2nd amendment remains fully in force, as originally written: A flat ban on any government taking away or restricting the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons, regardless of skin color, purpose, or military affiliation.

While you are searching for the language in the 2nd that restricts it to only military weapons, you might also want to point out the part that restricts its ban to only the Fed govt, but permits states and localities to infringe the right to keep and bear arms.

Good luck with that.

As I mentioned to ConHog, you might want to look through this essay, to help find those mysterious sections in the 2nd amendment:
http://constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

For some reason, ConHog hasn't gotten back to me with his comments on it. But I have faith.

Said reason being that I haven't' had a chance to read it yet, I will though and post my thoughts after, would be irresponsible to give an opinion on an essay I haven't even read though.

**red state** · 06-15-2012, 12:49 AM

Little Acorn is 110% correct in their interpretation and explanation to the simple minded among us....however, I will say that a shop owner does have the right to deny me the right of bringing a firearm into his/her business. I simply WILL NOT support that business and I suggest others find another store as well.

To OCA's comment about "TESTS". That is exactly how they get their foot in the door to deny us our rights (bit by bit). If we were required to pass an IQ test, mental test or "bigot" text...the standards would simply be altered to the point that NO ONE would or could qualify. Liberals are always good at changing standards (or should I say lowering them) until there are NONE. I do agree that there are some GOOD laws on this premise. Records prohibiting one's history (such as violent crimes or armed robbery) are very good laws to have that may prevent the misuse of firearms....or other weapons.

Take my state for instance. During the deer season (or especially during the deer season) it is illegal to have a loaded rifle and/or shotgun inside of your vehicle and on a County, State or Fed HWY. This was a law introduced a few years ago to keep the poachers and spot-lighters down. It didn't work...the outlaws STILL break the law while many Constitutionally legal citizens have been issued tickets. Now some would say: "What's the big deal...you still have your side are (carry/conceal permit)" and my answer would be that not every American has or can afford a secondary firearm such as pistol. Some good ole boys have one gun/rifle to defend themselves. As another poster commented on: "What good is my ammo when it is locked up in my glove box?!" EXACTLY...just like some cities ordinances require home owners to have their firearms and ammo LOCKED away (separately). That's almost as bad as waiting on the cops!!!

Now, getting back on B.O. and all his little minions/lemmings, THEY would like nothing better than to abolish ALL guns of ALL shapes, styles and sizes because that has just about been the order of things throughout history for a dictatorship to overthrow the people. Thanks be to Christ that our Nation is for WE The People...not we the sheeple. This very reason is why our founding fathers were so VERY clear on the 2nd!!!! I hope that wasn't too "OFF TOPIC" for some of the cry babies because it is VERY MUCH on topic in my opinion in demonstrating EXACTLY why the 2nd was put in and why it is so very important for the preservation of freedom in these USA.

THEY are dead set in destroying this Nation and THEY know exactly what pieces to dismantle in order to overthrow WE THE PEOPLE.

**revelarts** · 10-19-2012, 04:15 PM

http://www.newson6.com/category/121535/video-page?autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=7 857418

<script src="http://www.google-analytics.com/ga.js" async="" type="text/javascript"></script><script type="text/javascript" src="http://KOTV.images.worldnow.com/interface/js/WNVideo.js?rnd=930835;hostDomain=www.newson6.com;p layerWidth=620;playerHeight=355;isShowIcon=true;cl ipId=7857418;flvUri=;partnerclipid=;adTag=News;adv ertisingZone=;enableAds=true;landingPage=;islandin gPageoverride=false;playerType=STANDARD_EMBEDDEDsc ript_EMBEDDEDscript;controlsType=overlay"></script><link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://content.worldnow.com/global/css/_pub/off-platform.min.css?ver=2012-09-22-0500"><script id="wnAffiliateConfig" type="text/javascript" src="http://KOTV.images.worldnow.com/interface/js/wnaffiliateconfig.js?ver=2012-09-22-0500"></script><script id="wnOffPlatform" type="text/javascript" src="http://content.worldnow.com/global/js/_pub/off-platform.min.js?ver=2012-09-22-0500"></script>
<object data="http://www.newson6.com/global/video/flash/widgets/WNHeadline.swf?ver=2012-09-22-0500" name="WNHeadline930835divWNHeadline930835" id="WNHeadline930835divWNHeadline930835" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" height="25" width="620">

</object>

<object data="http://www.newson6.com/global/video/flash/widgets/WNVideoCanvas2.swf?ver=2012-09-22-0500" name="WNVideoCanvas930835divWNVideoCanvas930835" id="WNVideoCanvas930835divWNVideoCanvas930835" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" height="355" width="620">

</object>
NewsOn6.com - Tulsa, OK - News, Weather, Video and Sports - KOTV.com |

NEWSON6 – A 12-year-old girl took matters into her own hands during a home invasion in southeast Oklahoma.
It happened on Wednesday when the girl was home alone. She told police a stranger rang the doorbell, then went around to the back door and kicked it in. She called her mom, Debra St. Clair, who told her to get the family gun, hide in a closet and call 911.
That was when St. Clair dropped what she doing and raced home.
“I drove home at a really fast pace to try to get to her, and when I got here the police were already here. And they had the suspect,” she said.
The during that time, the intruder made his way through the house. St. Clair’s daughter told deputies the man came into the room where she was hiding and began to open up the closet door. That was when the 12-year-old had to make a life-saving decision.
“And what we understand right now, he was turning the doorknob when she fired through the door,” said the Bryan County Undersheriff Ken Golden.
The bullet hit the intruder, who deputies identified as 32-year-old Stacey Jones. He took off but did not get far before officers took him down.
“He was sitting down, the policemen had him apprehended at the end of the block. All I saw was some blood coming down his back. I’m not exactly sure where his injury was, but I saw some blood there,” explained St. Clair.
Jones was taken to a Texas hospital by helicopter after the incident. An investigator on the case said Jones was released from the hospital Thursday and extradited to the Bryan County Jail.
The 12-year-old girl was not injured during the ordeal.

She told another local news station this:
“I see a lot of girls on TV that get their house broken into and they turn up missing and just knowing that that could have happened to me. I was scared.”

http://www.therightscoop.com/awesome...-self-defense/

**Robert A Whit** · 10-19-2012, 04:36 PM

Little Acorn is 110% correct in their interpretation and explanation to the simple minded among us....however, I will say that a shop owner does have the right to deny me the right of bringing a firearm into his/her business. I simply WILL NOT support that business and I suggest others find another store as well.

The above would be the "clash of rights" so often offered as a reason.
When A has the right to carry his gun, does this mean that he may enter B's private property with said gun? That is question one.
What must the homeowner do to prevent A from walking in with his gun on him or her?

A business is not the same as a home. A business opens it's doors to commerce. Just as a cop may enter said store with his gun on, since guns are legally the right to have and carry per the constitution, I say the store owner may not ban said guns. However, let's state that on the front door of the premises, said shop owner posts a easy to see and read sign that bans guns being brought into the store. I have not yet seen such a store, but suppose it has this sign posted.
Can the shop keeper seek to prevent guns from the premises?
Any house lawyers?
I believe i know but let's see who wants to take a crack at this premise.

**fj1200** · 10-20-2012, 01:33 PM

^Property rights trump the second... and should.

**Robert A Whit** · 10-20-2012, 01:56 PM

Originally Posted by ConHog

Not quite correct.

In 1776 "bear arms" meant "own arms." It didn't mean "carry guns around" Why in Philiadelphia at the time carrying a gun in town was prohibited.

The Constitution of Pennsylvania protects the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state. The state preempts local regulation of the lawful ownership, possession, transfer or transportation of firearms, ammunition, or ammunition components.^[2]^[3]
Pennsylvania law requires that information received by the Pennsylvania State Police pursuant to a sale is destroyed within 72 hours of the completion of the background check.^[2]^[3] The Pennsylvania Firearm Owners Association states that the Pennsylvania State Police keep a "sales database" of all handguns purchased within the state.^[4] The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled in Allegheny County Sportsmen’s League v. Rendell, 860 A.2d 10 (Pa. 2004), that Pennsylvania’s database of handgun sales is not prohibited by state law.^[5]
No firearms are known to be prohibited by state law. Private sales of handguns must go through a licensed dealer, though long guns may be sold privately without the use of a licensed dealer. Licensed dealers must provide locking devices with handguns unless the handgun has a locking device incorporated in its design. Firearms are prohibited from certain places, including court facilities. Concealed carry on school property is currently an unsettled area of the law with many in law enforcement arguing that the practice is absolutely prohibited and firearms right supporters arguing that 18 Pa.C.S. 912(c) permits those who have a concealed carry license to carry on school grounds as an "other lawful purpose." Carrying a handgun on public streets and public property of Philadelphia, or in a vehicle anywhere in the state, or concealed on or about one's person anywhere in the state is prohibited without a "License To Carry Firearms" (LTCF) or a license or permit issued by another state which is honored by Pennsylvania for that purpose.^[2]^[3] A LTCF is generally not required to openly carry a firearm on or about one's person, except in a vehicle or in Philadelphia, or during a declared State of Emergency.^[6]
Pennsylvania shall issue a LTCF to resident and non-resident applicants if no good cause exists to deny the license. Non-resident applicants must first obtain a license from their home state, unless their home state does not issue licenses.^[2]^[3]

**Little-Acorn** · 10-26-2012, 04:02 PM

Originally Posted by Robert A Whit

The above would be the "clash of rights" so often offered as a reason.
When A has the right to carry his gun, does this mean that he may enter B's private property with said gun? That is question one.
What must the homeowner do to prevent A from walking in with his gun on him or her?

A business is not the same as a home. A business opens it's doors to commerce. Just as a cop may enter said store with his gun on, since guns are legally the right to have and carry per the constitution, I say the store owner may not ban said guns. However, let's state that on the front door of the premises, said shop owner posts a easy to see and read sign that bans guns being brought into the store. I have not yet seen such a store, but suppose it has this sign posted.
Can the shop keeper seek to prevent guns from the premises?
Any house lawyers?
I believe i know but let's see who wants to take a crack at this premise.

If a shopowner doesn't want a guy coming into his shop, he can always forbid him permission to enter, and the guy must obey that. If the shopowner does it because the guy has a gun in a holster or wherever, that makes no difference. The shopower can still deny him permission to enter for that reason.

The shopowner CANNOT take the guy's gun away, by the 2nd amendment. But he can deny the guy permission to enter.

BTW, riddle me this: If the shopowner puts up a sign saying "Persons carrying guns are not allowed here", I say he can do that. But if a person obey, leaves his gun in the car, and comes into the shop... and then a criminal assaults him and injures or kills him... does the shopowner become responsible for the person's injuries or death, since the shopowner denied him the means to defend himself?

Or can the shopowner say, "The guy had the choice to keep his gun and not enter. He chose to leave his gun outside and come in. Since it was his choice, it was his responsibility." ?

Thread: The Second Amendment

Thread Tools

Display

Little Acorn / OCA

Posting Permissions