View Single Post
  #267  
Old 09-08-2019, 01:23 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 82,441
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
Those are not equivalent. The militia clause can have purpose other than infringing on the individual right. You seem to be saying that the only purpose the militia clause can serve is as a restriction. But that's not accurate.
I feel we're talking about the legal effects in this thread. The militia clause might serve some political purpose (perhaps it made the Bill of Rights more acceptable to people voting on them) but judges deciding cases wouldn't base their decisions on that.

If you're suggesting the militia clause might be adding something to the individual right, I'm not seeing how. If you concede an individual has the right to own and carry firearms in general then giving one reason why they might do so doesn't add to that right. A person might own a firearm to fulfill their duties in a militia. Or they might own a firearm for self-defense or for hunting or as a collectible item or for competitive shooting; none of these reasons are listed in the amendment. That's because if the individual right is established, it's not necessary to offer suggestions as to why somebody might want to exercise it.

In legal terms, it means a judge can't base a ruling on why a person owns or carries a gun (except if the purpose is criminal). A judge can't say "You aren't entitled to own this firearm because you would not be doing so in a manner that is conducive to the existence of a well-regulated militia."