If “the militia” means only organized military units, then by what right can the Federal government draft civilians? The Constitution says that the Federal government can call out the militia to repel invasion, suppress insurrection and to execute the laws of the United States. That last phrase has been held to justify a draft when Congress has declared war or otherwise passed some sort of resolution, and has been universally held to mean “all eligible males” for purposes of a draft.
Even if the ruling holds, DC can still regulate the Hell out of weapons ownership - a total ban was struck, but in practice, they can very likely construct a virtual ban without it infringing the 2nd.
I use the term to refer to those who at least seem to equate the second half of the 2nd Amendment with holy writ, something whose examination and reconsideration is equivalent to heresy, requiring an emotional rather than reasoned response. You do see how it can look that way, don’t you?
Anything may be reversed, as you well know. But that isn’t the way to bet. Nor, to your assertion, have I claimed Miller provides a complete and final determination, just strong guidance. There is always room for quibbling around the margins, as this thread also amply demonstrates, and always will be.
I would if I had any idea what basis you have for that, other than wishful thinking. As noted, even Bricker isn’t offering to bet.
Why don’t you think it revolves around the *reason * they declared the sawed-off unprotected? The constitutional standard that they determined applies when assessing the protectedness of a firearm? To reach the narrow interpretation you and ExTank prefer, you have to ignore the reasoning and look only at the result, just like dismissing the first half of the amendment and considering only the second half.
It’s a binary solution set. The answer is either yes or no. 50/50.
Oh hell, I’ll take your bet. If SCOTUS takes the case, then I’ll bet the results will be close to what Bricker has suggested. But I’ll also bet they don’t take the case.
Not sure how important this is but the term “the militia” does not appear in the Second Amendment. It says a well regulated militia, not the militia.
The number of possible combinations is not related to their probability.
Either the world will be destroyed tomorrow in a great battle between the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Invisible Pink Unicorn, or it won’t. Which “50%” would you rather bet on, though?
Dr. Deth, I agree it’s most likely that they’ll leave it alone, at least until after the next Presidential election, rather than allow a polarizing issue hurt the Republican’s chances.
Nope, not at all. I did look at the reason. That was the whole point really.
And you don’t think that confirms the Constitutional standard by which *any other * firearm’s protectedness must be evaluated? The Second doesn’t say “sawed-off shotguns”, it says “arms”. Sawed-offs were a test case under which the general standard was established, not a “bottled oddity” irrelevant to any other kind of arm, wouldn’t you say? I just don’t see how you can read it any other way without being merely result-driven.
Exactly. I am not ignoring the first clause. It speaks about the militia (however that is defined). It seems to me that the reason that sawed off shotguns where outlawed in the Miller decision was BECASE of the first clause. Because sawed of shot guns are not a normally issued arm used in militias or the general army.
And yes, I do think it was a ‘bottled oddity’. And I think the SCOTUS decision did use the first clause to outlaw them.
I also think that the intent of the 2nd amendment was to allow people to defend themselves. Either on their own or in groups.
The first amendment for free speech is pretty much a given. The second was the obvious next step and I don’t think the authors thought that anyone would contest it.
The Second is ambiguous to some, I see that. Was it meant to be ambiguous? Or was the right to self defense so obvious to the authors that they did not spend much time on it. Or is the language of the period being mis-interpreted?
So you’re arguing that it was so obvious that they didn’t need to say it? Seems a rather facile argument.
Good point. Maybe it wasn’t obvious to everyone. But I do think that it is telling that the SECOND amendment tried to secure rights for the people to show disent. And protect their ability to speak up. I think that the second amendment came about as a way to try to protect the first.
Is it wrong to have laws that are ‘obvious’? We have lots of them. Thousands and thousands.
IMHO the 2nd amendment allows people the right to protect themselves from harm from others including the government. That’s just a start really.
I don’t think we should need the 2nd amendment. Our forfathers thought differently. And I think that they where right. There are way, way too many people that would confiscate guns for no other reason that they fear something that they don’t understand.
I guess I am ‘pro-gun’. I never really thought about it until I found out how many ‘anti-gun’ people there were.
Again and again and again, I hear news reports or an anecdote that demonstrates how little the anti-gun groups know about guns and the millions of responsible gun owners.
I’m a gun owner. And I am on the fence about a few things. But every time I hear another shrill anti gun rant by someone that does not know a thing about guns, there history, and there uses, I get off the fence on the pro-gun side.
And I am not speaking to any one in this thread about being ‘shrill’. But we have all heard it in other threads.
From both sides.
It’s nuts. I hate having to kill a spider in our house, but I own 8 guns. Can a person understand that a peaceful person such as my self would own a gun?
I should note that, to quote Wikipedia on Miller,
Sawed off shotguns are quite handy in military units. The Supreme Court just wasn’t able to take notice of it, because it was not brought up in defense. As there was no defense.
I’m not aware of any evidence that the Second Amendment’s purpose is to allow people to defend their freedom of speech specifically. How exactly would that work? “If you don’t let me talk I’ll shoot you”? The evidence tends to show it was about defending liberty in general.
At any rate, that’s not what most gun-owners are arguing for today. As I said before, they’re arguing for a right to personal self-defense, hunting, and recreational shooting.
Strawman. I did not say “it is wrong to have laws that are obvious”. What I’m saying is: your contention that the Second Amendment only mentions one use of arms because the other uses were “obvious” doesn’t hold water.
You’re entitled to your opinion. I agree that it protects the right of states to form militias to defend against encroaches on liberty. I do not agree that it protects an individual right to personal self-defense with a gun against common criminals.
I disagree. It’s not fear; it’s concern. Huge numbers of people are killed or injured by guns in the U.S.; what is it that isn’t understandable about that?
I never thought about it until I realized how many pro gun people there are. The pro’s are much more vocal than the anti’s.
I know that guns are often used to murder people. Did you know that? Because you don’t seem to acknowledge it.
That seems a strawman of sorts. You’re arguing that the second amendment protects your individual right to own a gun for personal self-defense, and others are arguing that the second amendment does not protect such a right.
I haven’t heard anyone argue that there are no peaceful people owning guns.
My thought is that the Miller ruling was based on an interpretation by SCOTUS that the second only protects arms that are typicaly used in the militia or general army.
:rolleyes: Oh please. My observations, have been that the anti-gun people just want to ban ‘dangerous’ guns. Not all guns. Just the ‘dangerous’ ones.
They then go on to pass regulations that ban weapons based mostly on cosmetics. It’s difficult to take many anti-gun folks seriously because they won’t seem to educate themselves beyond the basic ‘guns are often used to murder people’ comment like you just made.
Anyway, trying to get away from this and back to my post #179. I was just wondering why some people thought that the overturning of the DC handgun ban had anything to do with the Miller ruling. And it seemed that some pro-gunners thought that the Miller argument would have to be overturned. That is why I joined this thread.
Actually, guns are RARELY used to murder people, less than 1% of the guns in America are even used in a crime.
So basically, you’re saying that the old adage that says, “Outlaw guns and only outlaws will have them” rings true. I agree with this decision as well. I’m glad Americans can now own a gun in DC
False. Most murders are committed with guns.
In 2005, there were 16,692 murders. 68% were committed with firearms.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/violent_crime/murder_homicide.html
I think what you meant to say was most guns aren’t used to murder people. That only proves there is an excessively large number of guns in the country.
This argument seem disingenuous. Surely if people wanted to ban all guns, you would object to that as well, would you not? You don’t really object to just banning ‘dangerous’ guns, you object to banning any guns.
You’re right in that I have no interest in studying guns, since I have no desire to own or use one. But how exactly does your self-proclaimed expertise on the differences between models of guns change the fact that guns are used to murder people?
Does one have to know the difference between a V-6 and a V-8 to know that drunk driving is dangerous?
Is it your contention that all guns are equal? Are you saying that there’s no such thing as a gun that’s designed to inflict as much human damage as possible? Do you think it wouldn’t have made any difference if the North Hollywood bank robbers had been carrying .22’s?
If someone passes a poorly written and hard to enforce law, that should be remedied. I don’t see as how that’s an argument that guns aren’t dangerous, though.
Good way to quote someone out of context, the complete qoute ended with “less than 1% of the guns in America are even used in a crime.” So, I said what I meant.
There are over 200 million privately owned guns in America, that means less than 1 gun in 20,000 was used in a murder.