# Doesn't the 2nd Amendment technically forbid ANY federal gun laws? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 7, 2008, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doesnt-the-2nd-amendment-technically-forbid-any-federal-gun-laws/440402 "2008-03-07T02:09:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2008, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doesnt-the-2nd-amendment-technically-forbid-any-federal-gun-laws/440402/81 "2008-03-08T22:40:48Z")
[QUOTE=E-Sabbath] Please show me specifically where the Supreme Court said that this was not an individual right. [/quote] Sigh … the part where they declared militia use to be the applicable criterion. Do try reading first, okay? > [@](#): > > That’s nice. We’re not saying that. We are saying that you are not stupid, but you _are_ wrong. Yep, you missed the part where I said the _SC’s opinion_ is the one that matters, stupid or wrong or not, \*not \* yours or mine or anyone else’s. You can disagree with them, or with me, all you like, but so what? The law is what the people empowered to decide such things have decided. Do you agree with that or not? Horse, water … ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2008, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doesnt-the-2nd-amendment-technically-forbid-any-federal-gun-laws/440402/82 "2008-03-08T22:57:50Z")
[QUOTE=E-Sabbath] Glad to clear that up for you. [/QUOTE] [The Militia Act of 1903](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903) > [@](#): > > Under this legislation the organized militia of the States was required to conform to Regular Army organization within five years. The act also required National Guard units to attend 24 drills and five days annual training a year, and, for the first time, provided for pay for annual training. In return for the increased Federal funding which the act made available, militia units were subject to inspection by Regular Army officers, and had to meet certain standards. and the National Defense Act of 1916: > [@](#): > > It transformed the militia from individual state forces into a Reserve Component of the U.S. Army - and made the term “National Guard” mandatory. The act stated that all units would have to be federally recognized, and that the qualifications for officers would be set by the War Department. Back atcha. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2008, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doesnt-the-2nd-amendment-technically-forbid-any-federal-gun-laws/440402/83 "2008-03-08T23:09:48Z")
Oh, just to clarify further, the “unorganized militia” is hardly well-regulated, is it? Not if it isn’t even organized. That leaves the Guard as the only “People” with Second Amendment rights rather than mere statutory ones - and that was the situation in 1939 as well as today. Got anything else to offer as _fact_, as the OP (remember the OP? There was an OP) requested? ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2008, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doesnt-the-2nd-amendment-technically-forbid-any-federal-gun-laws/440402/84 "2008-03-09T00:32:02Z")
[http://www.dmna.state.ny.us/nyg/nyg-hist.html](http://www.dmna.state.ny.us/nyg/nyg-hist.html) > [@](#): > > On 3 August 1917, the Adjutant General of New York, in order to comply with the provisions of the State Constitution requiring that troops be available to the Governor for the protection of life and property of the citizens of New York, organized a State Military Force known as the New York Guard. The new force replaced the New York National Guard, drafted in the service of the United States on 5 August 1917. Back at you, Elvis. That’s right, the 1916 law made all existing state militias NG units. But new ones can be raised. Are you going to say the NY Guard has no Second Amendment rights, while the NY National Guard does? Finally, to repeat, in 1916, all _state_ militias were merged. City, town, village, and private militias were not. Further, after 1916, new militias were formed from within the body of the unorganized militia. These militias can be considered well-regulated. And the NY Guard existed in 1939. Fact. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2008, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doesnt-the-2nd-amendment-technically-forbid-any-federal-gun-laws/440402/85 "2008-03-09T00:36:59Z")
[QUOTE=E-Sabbath] Are you going to say the NY Guard has no Second Amendment rights, while the NY National Guard does? [/quote] Of course not, not if they’re “well-organized” as a relevant court would rule. The point, which seems to elude you even now, is that there is no \*functional \* individual right, as so many somehow loudly claim even today (and even more admit is the case but still dislike it). The Guard discussion is just to clarify what the \*functional \* definition of “People” is in regard to the Second. “The right of the People” exists via their creation, organization, and, well, regulation of legally constituted militia. Don’t complain to me, complain to the Court, or get an amendment going. But just quit whining, guys. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2008, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doesnt-the-2nd-amendment-technically-forbid-any-federal-gun-laws/440402/86 "2008-03-09T02:50:35Z")
**ElvisL1ves** , I think it’s a little oversimplistic to say “The Supreme Court has spoken” and to dismiss any protestations as futile ranting akin to the specious arguments tax protesters use to claim the IRS is illegal. For starters, Supreme Court decisions are not immutable: _Brown vs. Board of Education_ flatly overturned the previous doctrine of “separate but equal”, and it didn’t requre a constitutional amendment to do so. Rather, it brought a case to court that pointed out that the “equal” part was so routinely violated that the previous standard could never effectively be upheld. Supreme Court decisions may be the law of the land, but that doesn’t mean that they are logically consistant or weren’t merely legalistic rationalizations for an Ad Hoc position the court majority took. Many people believe the logic of _Miller_ to be incorrect, and they ARE doing something about it: they’re bringing a case to the Supreme Court that will finally explicitly state either that the government can regulate private gun possession out of existence, or it cannot. If the SC does rule that DC can effectively ban private firearms, then we may indeed see a push for a constitutional amendment to rectify that. Secondly, there seems to be a bit of a logical leap that we would like clarified: in _Miller_, the court ruled that the 2nd Amendment does not make federal laws banning some types of firearms unconstitutional. Accepting that as a given for the moment, how do you leap to the conclusion “and therefore, no one who isn’t a National Guard member should have a gun”? _Miller_ brings up the word “militia” because the appeal was explicitly based on the 2nd Amendment, which uses the term. But the ruling says nothing about militia membership; it only addresses whether the firearm in question could reasonably be considered to be a military weapon. Thirdly, there is disagreement over exactly what the letter of _Miller_ means. Proponents of gun control hold that in the _Miller_ case, the Supreme Court explicitly stated that the 2nd Amendment makes gun possession dependent on, and subordinate to, enrollment in a government-organized militia such as the National Guard. That the **purpose** of the 2nd is subordinate to that goal, and therefore all other considerations that don’t directly support the goal can be ignored. Yet opponents of gun bans hold that that interpretation of _Miller_ is overbroad, and that nothing in _Miller_ explicitly supports that supposition. Fourthly, there is the whole can of worms over the fundamental definition of the terms “militia” and “well-regulated”. Proponents of private gun rights point out multiple writings by the Framers that would seem on the face of it to contradict the “National Guard” theory of the “well-regulated miliita” clause of the 2nd. Again, _Miller_ does not define either term, or say what is and what is not a militia under the 2nd; it merely addresses the subject of certain classes of weapons- specifically, jury-rigged weapons designed primarily for committing crimes, with little or no military utility. Lastly, the fact that there is so much controversy over the 2nd Amendment and the rulings and court decisions concerning it, is ample proof that there is legitimate doubt about the meaning and interpretation of the provisions. Debates over such meanings and interpretations are relevent, because otherwise the original intent of a written statute could by a slippery-slope process get interpreted out of existence. As I sarcastically said upthread “So apparently, the 2nd Amendment means ‘You have the right to be drafted and have the army issue you a weapon’”. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2008, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doesnt-the-2nd-amendment-technically-forbid-any-federal-gun-laws/440402/87 "2008-03-09T03:24:58Z")
That is, in fact, Elvis’ apparent position. It is blatantly wrong. There is an individual right to own a gun. First, I give you the 5th Circuit Court. [http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa101701a.htm](http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa101701a.htm) > [@](#): > > ``` > "We find that the history of the Second Amendment > > ``` > > reinforces the plain meaning of its text, namely that it protects > individual Americans in their right to keep and bear arms whether or not > they are a member of a select militia or performing active military > service or training." > > ``` > "We reject the collective rights and sophisticated > > ``` > > collective rights models for interpreting the Second Amendment. We > hold, consistent with Miller, that it protects the right of individuals, > including those not then actually a member of any militia or engaged in > active military service or training, to privately possess and bear their > own firearms, such as the pistol involved here, that are suitable as > personal, individual weapons and are not of the general kind or type > excluded by Miller." Second, I give you the Justice Department. [http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:uqTUXHzZv44J:www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.pdf+justice+department+individual+right+bear+arms&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a](http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:uqTUXHzZv44J:www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.pdf+justice+department+individual+right+bear+arms&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a) (PDF to HTML) > [@](#): > > "The Second Amendment secures a right of individuals generally, not a right of States or a > right restricted to persons serving in militias. " > > “For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the Second Amendment secures an individual > right to keep and to bear arms. Current case law leaves open and unsettled the question of whose right is secured by the Amendment. Although we do not address the scope of the right, our examination of the original meaning of the Amendment provides extensive reasons to conclude that the Second Amendment secures an individual right, and no persuasive basis for either the collective-right or quasi-collective-right views. The text of the Amendment’s operative clause, setting out a “right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” is clear and is reinforced by the Constitution’s structure. The Amendment’s prefatory clause, properly understood, is fully consistent with this interpretation. The broader history of the Anglo-American right of individuals to have and use arms, from England’s Revolution of 1688-1689 to the ratification of the Second Amendment a hundred years later, leads to the same conclusion. Finally, the first hundred years of interpretations of the Amendment, and especially the commentaries and case law in the pre-Civil War period closest to the Amendment’s ratification, confirm what the text and history of the Second Amendment require.” Elvis, the 5th Circuit is the step _below_ the Supreme Court. Now, the question is, will the Supreme Court _ever_ take another 2nd Amendment case, and settle this once and for all? I don’t think they will, sadly. I’d sure like to see them rule that the automatic weapons ban of '87 was unconstitutional. Because that’s pretty much how they’re stacked to go right now. Your court. Find me newer or higher authority contradicting these two sources calling it an individual right. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2008, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doesnt-the-2nd-amendment-technically-forbid-any-federal-gun-laws/440402/88 "2008-03-09T03:58:34Z")
[QUOTE=Steve MB] Yep. Individuals have the right to keep and bear “arms”, which are defined as “weapons of a type generally carried by infantry”. [/QUOTE] Where is that definition from? ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2008, 5:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doesnt-the-2nd-amendment-technically-forbid-any-federal-gun-laws/440402/89 "2008-03-09T05:25:36Z")
Arms, said alone, dates back several hundred years, and refers to the personal arms of a person. If a king had the responsibility to arm a knight, he owed him armor, a sword, a shield, and a horse, at the least. Going forward from that point, today, it generally is considered to be ‘small arms’, the arms personally assigned to a soldier, rather than the larger ordinance in a unit’s table of equipment. … I mean, I don’t know where it’s _from_. But I rather suspect it is related to the word ‘arm’ meaning the things on your shoulders, and related to ‘the things you put in people’s hands’ because to give someone a sword is to arm them. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2008, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doesnt-the-2nd-amendment-technically-forbid-any-federal-gun-laws/440402/90 "2008-03-09T05:28:26Z")
[QUOTE=E-Sabbath] Arms, said alone, dates back several hundred years, and refers to the personal arms of a person. If a king had the responsibility to arm a knight, he owed him armor, a sword, a shield, and a horse, at the least. Going forward from that point, today, it generally is considered to be ‘small arms’, the arms personally assigned to a soldier, rather than the larger ordinance in a unit’s table of equipment. … I mean, I don’t know where it’s _from_. But I rather suspect it is related to the word ‘arm’ meaning the things on your shoulders, and related to ‘the things you put in people’s hands’ because to give someone a sword is to arm them. [/QUOTE] But do you have a cite from a dictionary, court ruling, or somewhere? When I look at dictionaries they have a much wider definition of arms than you are using. ---
**Author:** ![Stealth\_Potato](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@Stealth\_Potato](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stealth_Potato)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2008, 6:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doesnt-the-2nd-amendment-technically-forbid-any-federal-gun-laws/440402/91 "2008-03-09T06:56:28Z")
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves] As long as it’s part of your being in a “well-regulated militia”. Otherwise your ownership is under the control of simple statute, not the (silent) Constitution. Glad to clear \*that \* up for you. [/QUOTE] Are you really incapable of understanding the text of the decision in _Miller_? The SCOTUS ruled that for an arm to be protected under the Second Amendment, it must be appropriate for military use. They **did not** rule that the right to keep and bear the arm is contingent to doing so in the service of an actual, well-regulated militia. It is only you who is spinning this fantasy out of thin air. Now, the question is: does a guarantee of a “right of the people” secure a right for the individuals that comprise that people? I sure hope so, because otherwise I have no right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment. Jeebus, you ought to work for the Bush administration, **Elvis** ; you’d fit right in. If the drafters of the Bill of Rights had meant only that states should be able to arm their militias, they would have said so; instead, they guaranteed a “right of the people,” and the meaning of that should be clear to anybody who isn’t trying to twist the facts to fit their agenda. [QUOTE=ElvisL1ves] Sigh … the part where they declared militia use to be the applicable criterion. Do try reading first, okay? [/quote] Why don’t you try reading it? They pretty clearly declared _suitability_ for militia use to be the criterion. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2008, 8:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doesnt-the-2nd-amendment-technically-forbid-any-federal-gun-laws/440402/92 "2008-03-09T08:29:28Z")
> [@](#): > > Actually it is a result of Roosevelt’s court packing scheme in 1933 - only 75 years old It goes back at least as far as _Swift & Co. v. United States_ (196 U.S. 375) in 1905 when the USSC used the ICC as a basis to justify federal regulation of local meat packing plants. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2008, 8:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doesnt-the-2nd-amendment-technically-forbid-any-federal-gun-laws/440402/93 "2008-03-09T08:38:46Z")
> [@](#): > > But no reasonable person has any fear that the government with outlaw reproduction at any time in the future. People have a real fear of criminalization of guns in our lifetimes. > > Without registration, then it would be impossible to take guns away from people. Nobody knows if I own zero guns or a hundred, but enact a registration law, and now the government knows. It would be the first logical step to confiscation, and that is why pro-gun people fight registration so hard. > > If that was the end all of gun laws, then I don’t think anyone would complain about it. The issue isn’t whether or not it’s a good law. It’s whether or not it’s constitutional. A law mandating recording gun ownership would not infringe on gun ownership - so it wouldn’t violate the 2nd Amendment. A law that confiscated guns would obviously infringe gun ownership and would therefore be unconstitutional. Saying something might at some future point be used as part of a process to confiscate firearms is a pretty broad brush. You could use this argument to say that the government shouldn’t have the power to issue warrants, for example, because warrants might be used to search for firearms if firearms were made illegal. ---
**Author:** ![Stealth\_Potato](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@Stealth\_Potato](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stealth_Potato)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2008, 8:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doesnt-the-2nd-amendment-technically-forbid-any-federal-gun-laws/440402/94 "2008-03-09T08:52:13Z")
[QUOTE=Little Nemo] The issue isn’t whether or not it’s a good law. It’s whether or not it’s constitutional. A law mandating recording gun ownership would not infringe on gun ownership - so it wouldn’t violate the 2nd Amendment. A law that confiscated guns would obviously infringe gun ownership and would therefore be unconstitutional. [/quote] I still don’t buy this; registration creates a necessary condition in order to perform an action without going to jail for it. I think that under those circumstances it is reasonable to say that if a “right” exists to perform that action, that right is being infringed. ---
**Author:** ![BrainFireBob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e495f1/32.png) [@BrainFireBob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainFireBob)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2008, 9:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doesnt-the-2nd-amendment-technically-forbid-any-federal-gun-laws/440402/95 "2008-03-09T09:22:11Z")
Little Nemo, Napier, what you’re missing is the other side. Yes, if gun registration was required, that would not be a problem. If a gun is not registered, what then? If it is in any way confiscated or otherwise rendered illegal to own, then it impinges on the 2nd Amendment. There’s no way to enforce the law, without violating the 2nd. Now, I suppose required gunshop owners to register all sales, and requiring licenses for firearms dealers that would be revoked if it was found they did not record sales- neither position, as salesman nor as dealer, being necessarily protected by the 2nd- that would be fine, but that’s mandating registration by seller of all sales, and not registration of all firearms- and I don’t think there’s a way to legally make it stick to private sales. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2008, 11:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doesnt-the-2nd-amendment-technically-forbid-any-federal-gun-laws/440402/96 "2008-03-09T11:09:26Z")
[QUOTE=DanBlather] But do you have a cite from a dictionary, court ruling, or somewhere? When I look at dictionaries they have a much wider definition of arms than you are using. [/QUOTE] [http://www.bartleby.com/61/60/A0426000.html](http://www.bartleby.com/61/60/A0426000.html) > [@](#): > > NOUN: 1. A weapon, especially a firearm: troops bearing arms; Notice that the next sentence specifies _nuclear_ arms as a specific qualifier. If unspecified, it tends to mean simple firearms. The key is to note the difference between arms and ordnance. [http://www.bartleby.com/61/20/O0112000.html](http://www.bartleby.com/61/20/O0112000.html) > [@](#): > > NOUN: 1. Military materiel, such as weapons, ammunition, combat vehicles, and equipment. Now, you could try to argue that nukes are covered under arming yourself, but that doesn’t seem to be how the Supreme Court has interpreted the matter. The distinction I made _seems_ to be the current operating definition. On the other hand, yes, you’re right, an argument _could_ be made to made the distinction cover larger weapons. It’s not likely, but it’s more likely than greater restriction. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2008, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doesnt-the-2nd-amendment-technically-forbid-any-federal-gun-laws/440402/97 "2008-03-09T14:13:52Z")
[QUOTE=E-Sabbath] That is, in fact, Elvis’ apparent position. It is blatantly wrong. There is an individual right to own a gun. [/QUOTE] I am loathe to get involved in these “debates”, but I will point out that believing that the 2nd amendment does not grant an individual right is, in no way shape or form, “blatantly wrong”. You may believe it is wrong, but, given the historical evidence, analysis of Miller, and the split in the circuits, calling it “blatantly wrong”, as if it is well settled, is going well too far. While DC and the 5th have found it so, many other districts, including the 9th in Silveria v. Lockyear, the 10th in US v. Oakes; and others. There is a great amount of legitimate historical evidence, language interpretation, and arguments on BOTH sides. Just because Elvis isn’t up to the task of proving it here, does not make his position “blatantly wrong”. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2008, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doesnt-the-2nd-amendment-technically-forbid-any-federal-gun-laws/440402/98 "2008-03-09T17:14:01Z")
[QUOTE=Lumpy] For starters, Supreme Court decisions are not immutable [/quote] Never said they were. But that hasn’t happened yet, has it? > [@](#): > > Secondly, there seems to be a bit of a logical leap that we would like clarified: in _Miller_, the court ruled that the 2nd Amendment does not make federal laws banning some types of firearms unconstitutional. Accepting that as a given for the moment, how do you leap to the conclusion “and therefore, no one who isn’t a National Guard member should have a gun”? What the hell is the problem here? I haven’t said jack shit (here) about what \*should \* be the law, only about what _is_ the law, at this time. :dubious: > [@](#): > > But the ruling says nothing about militia membership; it only addresses whether the firearm in question could reasonably be considered to be a military weapon. Perhaps \*you \* can be the first here to explain why they bothered with that, if they thought there was an individual right beyond such definitions. > [@](#): > > Yet opponents of gun bans hold that that interpretation of _Miller_ is overbroad Unfortunately without any basis other than their own opinion that the Court just got it wrong. Which, unfortunately for those who think so, doesn’t matter on the ground. > [@](#): > > Fourthly, there is the whole can of worms over the fundamental definition of the terms “militia” and “well-regulated”. I know that. But if that’s the remaining grounds to argue the matter, it already concedes that there really is no individual right - again, as the law is in practice, not what anybody other than the SC has ever thought it should be. > [@](#): > > Lastly, the fact that there is so much controversy over the 2nd Amendment and the rulings and court decisions concerning it, is ample proof that there is legitimate doubt about the meaning and interpretation of the provisions. Not all controversy in life is “legitimate”. Much of the time it’s simple whining. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2008, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doesnt-the-2nd-amendment-technically-forbid-any-federal-gun-laws/440402/99 "2008-03-09T17:15:14Z")
[QUOTE=Hamlet] Just because Elvis isn’t up to the task of proving it here, does not make his position “blatantly wrong”. [/QUOTE] Perhaps you can add something more than snark, then. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2008, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doesnt-the-2nd-amendment-technically-forbid-any-federal-gun-laws/440402/100 "2008-03-09T19:22:35Z")
[QUOTE=Hamlet] I am loathe to get involved in these “debates”, but I will point out that believing that the 2nd amendment does not grant an individual right is, in no way shape or form, “blatantly wrong”. [/QUOTE] No, no, but Elvis’ apparent position, which works logically out to ‘you have the right to be drafted and issued a weapon’, is blatantly wrong. I was replying to Lumpy’s post directly above that one. Elvis seems to be ignoring my request for him to post opposing case law equal or better to my citation. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doesnt-the-2nd-amendment-technically-forbid-any-federal-gun-laws/440402.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doesnt-the-2nd-amendment-technically-forbid-any-federal-gun-laws/440402.md?page=6)