Yeah, I see what you mean. I wasn’t very clear on the subject. Let’s just say that the only way that this ruling can end up unfavorably for gun-rights people is if they agree to hear the case and then overturn the lower court’s ruling. If they choose not to the ruling stays as is. If they choose to take the case it would be the first time since 1939 (US v. Miller) that they have taken a case with direct 2nd Amendment relevance, which to me means that they have been actively avoiding making a decision out of fear of setting a precedent.
The interesting thing about it is that this is one of the exceedingly rare cases since the Civil War where the 2nd Amendment has been interpreted to mean an individual rather than a collective right. I believe that the Supremes have been OK with this via their unwillingness to address it directly. Well, now they will either affirm the individual rights interpretation (by denial of cert) or they will have to denounce it openly.
Truth is, regardless of the end result of the case I just want it to be settled one way or another. There doesn’t seem to be any way out of doing so for the Supremes. That in and of itself is enough reason for me to be happy about the decision.
No, your weapons and knowledge are well-regulated, but as a militia, you are not necessarily so.
You must be prepared to act as an organized military unit under your commander-in-chief, who would most likely be the governor of your state, or the President if you were called to national defense.
The main modern issue of gun control essentially revolves around the question: “What does the second amendment mean in the absence of a state militia?”
We have not really had militia organized at the state level since over a century ago, during one of the previos dark times in our natiion’s history when both the presidency and and the congress were controlled by Republicans. The National Guard was subsumed into the Army, and we have been without real state militia ever since.
Conservatives labor under the assumption that this simply means everyone just gets to do as they please with their guns. While this armed citizenry is a militia in the traditional sense of the word, it is hardly well-regulated, which is of concern to the Left, who take it upon themselves to push states and localities into providing what regulation they can to rein in possible abuse of this freedom sometimes in apparent overstepping of their bounds, leading to court cases such as this one.
I have long advocated for a re-institution of the state-level militia. All gun owners would have to report regularly for basic military and security-enforcement exercises. Don’t like the militia? Fine, sell your arms to those who take the responsibility seriously. It is not Stalinist, it is American in the purest sense of the term. The National Guard, as an arm of the US Army, would cease to exist.
Nah, I agree with Howie. Let’s face it - the amendment is poorly worded. I’ve heard really good arguments from both sides. It’s not settled at all, and quoting a Wikipedia argument certainly doesn’t settle it. In most cases, an individual’s opinion boils down to whether he likes or dislikes guns. An argument can easily be constructed supporting either point of view. We just got through hashing it all out in The Pit, so I don’t want to go down that road again, but I believe that reasonable people can disagree on this issue.
I agree it’s poorly worded in its final writing, but the intent is clear, from the evolution of the Amendment and the historical context of weapons ownership among the people at the time, as well as other writings in the Federalist Papers IIRC. No Amendment can be looked at with blinders on as to its source, and anyone who really cares about arguing an issue - any issue - involving the Constitution - has an intellectual burden to research it some.
Dismissing an argument by waving a hand a Wikipedia entry is only proper if you have a specific problem with the alleged facts presented and detail those disputes. What are the disputes with the timeline of the textual evolution? We can go through them one by one and see how it plays out. Note that this particular entry has numerous citations which can be read and verified.
This is an interesting debate. The only thing I would add is a word of caution to how influential this is going to be practically — the reason the CATO Institute went after this law in the first place was because it was the most restrictive in the country:
------QUOTE-------------------
*Washington, D.C., law states that it is illegal for anyone to own a handgun unless he or she is a police officer or has owned a gun registered prior to 1976.
Even those allowed to possess a gun must keep it unloaded.*
I think in the SCOTUS rather than Roe v. Wade, this may turn out to be more like the Death Penalty – which in certain instances the Supreme Court knocks down in others it lets stand if certain rules are followed – I think there is a middle ground on handguns in the country and the DC Law that was struck down isn’t there.
Scot, you’re wrong. Also, you’re wrong. The term ‘well-regulated’ is similar to ‘well-tempered’ in the Well-Tempered Clavier. It means internal condition, not laws laid upon.
Secondly, the New York Guard would disagree with your opinion on the existence of state militias.
Wouldn’t it make more sense to read “state” as meaning “political entity,” rather than subdivisions of the US - much as the US has a Secretary of State?
I didn’t quite understand what I was supposed to take away from the history you gave.
What I did take away (whether it was what I was supposed to take away or not) was that the idea behind the amendment is that:
Each individual citizen will be allowed to own weaponry
Because this is important for the free organization of militias
Because this is the best way to defend the nation, both against other nations and against its own government.
Okay, but how does this help? The law is intended to grant each individual the right to bear arms. But the reasons given for the law are outdated. But the law’s the law–it says everyone should have the right to bear arms. Even though the justification given in the law itself doesn’t apply to modern times. Yet the law does grant the right. And so on and so on.
See what I mean? Pretty much the same debate we have over the law as it stands applies to the “clarified” version of the law we can glean from a look at history.
Perhaps you already know this, but it bears repeating. If you examine the lengthy Wiki article Una Persson linked to, you will find that the phrase “bear arms” has quite a different meaning today than 200 years ago.
Today, if I pick up a rifle and walk around the woods with it, concealed or not, I think most people would say I was bearing arms (not to be confused with arming bears).
But in the eighteenth century, even if you went hunting every year for 20 years, you would not be bearing arms until you joined a military unit. Someone bearing arms was a soldier, whether in a highly-organized unit or a more loosely arranged one like a volunteer army.
The term “keep arms” does not seem to have changed over the centuries.
So the right to “keep and bear arms” as written in the constitution means the right to possess weapons and serve in the military.
It is only my interest in discussing the issues I raised that causes me to respond to this unwiped dingleberry of a post.
The page linked in silenus’ post conveys the contemporary meaning of well-regulated at the time of the framing of the Constitution.
There is also, I hope, an understanding that “militia” traditionally refers to the entirety of the armed citizenry.
Unfortunately, silenus tries to posit that once each militia member’s gun is well-regulated and each member’s status as a gun owner and operator is well-regulated, that the entire militia is well-regulated.
I don’t think you’ll find a military commander on Earth who wants to go to directly to battle with a force whose sole knowledge is how to store, clean, maintain, carry, load, aim and fire their weapons. While this knowledge is certainly vital, there’s a hell of a lot more that goes into to making a fighting force well-regulated, in the agreed sense of the term.
The Founding Fathers knew this, and provided for it in the Constitution:
and
And remember, the militia is everyone who owns a weapon.
The presence of a state militia in a well-regulated condition would cause every citizen who saw a gun in a neighbor’s house to fell a sense of security and admiration: Here is person who has willingly taken time out of their lives to ensure that they have received the necessary training and discipline to band together with others like them as an effective defense force of the state, and possibly the nation.
However, in most cases, the militia in each state are far from well-regulated, as a whole. Some believe this state of affairs renders the Second Amendment effectively castrated of its initial phrase. Some members even refer to their Constitutionally-stated responsibilities with such ridiculous epithets as “Stalinist”. This leaves the rest of us with no choice but to view their motives and patriotism with deep suspicion.
Interesting stuff, I was not aware of their existence.
According to their history page, they were created in 1917, some years after the 1903 subsuming of the National Guard (then seen to carry out the role of the militia) into the US Army. New York saw the need for more state-loyal fighting force, in line with my argument. Of course, the New York Guard is only those members of he militia in New York who volunteer for it, not the entire militia of New York, in the traditional sense of the word.
Or is someone going to argue that we must view the word “well-regulated” with its historical definition, but not “militia”?
I think the only reason the 2nd amendment is ‘hard to parse’ is because the people who don’t like it have attempted to make it hard to parse. To me it’s simple: The first half is a preamble. The second is the categorical statement of the right. The first does not modify the second.
If I said to you, “Because free speech allows dissenting voices to be heard, people have a right to say whatever they want”, would you argue that this doesn’t apply to the internet, because no one is using their actual voice? Or that speech can be squashed so long as it’s not ‘dissent’?
Let’s try parsing another fun amendment as some have attempted to parse the 2nd amendment:
So… It should be okay to have the ten commandments in a court. No law was made. Also, I think you can make a law that says everyone has to be Christian, because Christianity was already established, so the law is not establishing a new religion. Also, when a student in a school is prevented from praying or mentioning God in a speech, how is that not ‘preventing the free expression of religion’, and therefore unconstitutional? Did I miss the part where this says it doesn’t apply to speech carried out in any public faciity?
And since the amendment makes a distinction between ‘speech’ and ‘the press’, clearly they are talking about written and spoken speech in particular. Otherwise, why mention the press at all, if speech just means ‘any communication’? So from that I take it that we can prevent people speaking in sign langage, and we can pass laws preventing certain pictures from being published. Also, what constitutes ‘the press’? Does that mean that you are free to speak your voice, but if you write for dissemination you only have protection if you are part of ‘the press’? Do we need to get into a long debate about what the founding fathers considered the ‘press’ to be, before determining if someone has a right to publish?
One of the arguments made by 2nd Amendment opponents is that back in the day, people didn’t have access to truly devastating weapons that could do mass destruction or actually damage the military of the time, but today they do and clearly the founding father’s would have thought differently had they known what kind of ‘arms’ people could wind up having. So… by that logic, since the internet allows speech to have much wider-ranging consequences than it did 200 years ago, could I use that as a justification for abridging the freedom of speech?
Also, since the right of people to assemble is modified by ‘peaceably’, I think we can pass a law preventing people from gathering for UFC fights or boxing matches. Mosh pits are also right out.
Perhaps you can also explain how this new ruling is in compliance with that existing settled interpretation.
Or else that they haven’t seen any *need * to revisit their existing settled ruling, lower courts having heretofore *complied * with it.
Gee, I wonder why they’ve been so rare? Amazing, huh?
It *has * been settled, since 1939. There have been many people, of course, as unhappy as you with the settled interpretation, who’ve tried to pretend it isn’t settled at all. Sam, you desperately need to get a better understanding of the principles of American Consitutional law before you spread any more ignorance like that last post (though, in fairness, the gun “rights” lobby down here is fond of doing the same). Short remedial version: Our Constitution is not a mere statute. It’s purpose is to describe the principles and purposes behind our laws so they can be written and applied accordingly. You can’t dismiss the parts you don’t like, via semantic parsing or any other method. It is what it is, it means what it says it means, and it itself says and means what the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is. The Supreme Court agreed and so held in Miller, in the topic at hand.
Now effin’ *deal * with it, guys. You don’t like what the Constitution says, quit whining and go get an amendment started.
I think it’s pretty obvious the Constitution protects the right for every citizen to bear arms. In recent times anxiety over the notion of folks running around in cities with guns has generated the emphasis on nuancing the first clause of the amendment. That nuance would have been laughed at in the timeframe in which it was written.
But if you accept that the Constitution guarantees a right to bear arms because you want to read it literally and leave out the nuance, I think you have a problem figuring out what “arms” means anymore. Just guns? A machine gun? An antitank missile? A shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missile? A small nuke? A fighter jet? A fully armed aircraft carrier?
The whole thing needs to be revisited. We should stop trying to parse out the constitution on some of these key issues and rewrite them for today…personal arms and abortion are two good places to start.
Yeah; I realize it won’t happen. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it–just that we don’t have the gumption to try.
“Nuance”? In what other way *can * the first clause be interpreted without ignoring it entirely? :dubious: Never mind that the Official Deciders Of Such Matters have already ruled that there isn’t one, not one that matters legally.
If an amendment to eliminate it is doomed as you say (and I agree), isn’t that basically because we as a society don’t *want * it amended, notwithstanding the existence of a vocal minority that can’t accept that situation but can’t make a convincing argument?
Oh yeah, I’m as interested as anyone in seeing Bricker’s explanation for his *happiness * at seeing a Supreme Court ruling ignored. Surely it can’t be simple result-orientation, can it?
Nope, I think a right to free speech is a good thing to have in a Constitution. I don’t think having guns is such a fundamentally important right in a society. Obviously other people disagree with me.
Of course, you go to war with the Constitution you have, not the Constitution you want. And there is some right to bear arms in there. But most professional interpretations of the second amendment are not as generous as the wishful thinking interpretations of the gun lovers in this thread. Anyone who says the Second Amendment clearly says one extreme or the other of the gun control argument is doing nothing more than displaying their biases. It’s vague and people will interpret it in different ways.
But I and others see this same history and do NOT see it as a slam-dunk for the 2nd being an individual right to own a gun for hunting and self-defense. Perhaps you think it’s clear, to you, if you cherry-pick certain sources. However, there is very clear and convincing evidence that the purpose of the amendment was to protect the STATES against the federal government. Not to see that is to ignore a mountain of evidence. You may read the previous drafts of the amendment as supporting an invidual right, but I do not, nor do many experts.
Frankly, I don’t see how you arrive at your conclusion at all. The previous drafts sound MORE like they are referring to a collective right, not less. According to your source, there was even a motion to include the wording “For the common defence”. COMMON defence, not individual defence. That motion was defeated, but if we’re going to consider things that were ultimately rejected, as you seem to want to do, then that would seem to be evidence AGAINST your point of view.
I don’t think it’s fair to accuse me of “hand waving” when all you did was do a drive-by post of a Wikipedia article, make no cogent arguments whatsoever, and then declare that the matter is settled. Especially since the text you quoted doesn’t make the point that you claim it does.
It’s not that it’s Wikipedia that I object to, it’s that all you did was post the friggin’ article and say “It has much information”. That’s hardly an argument. And I didn’t even say I didn’t think you have some good points. All I said was that there are two sides to the issue, and that reasonable people can disagree.
That has nothing to do with how the 2nd is interpreted. The 1st has no opening clause that would be analagous to the opening clause of the 2nd. All you’re doing is making a bald assertion about how you think the 2nd should be interpreted, and reciting a litany of strawmen positions that you imagine those who disagree with you would take.
I could do the same thing: Let’s try parsing another amendment as pro-gun people have atempted to parse the 2nd amendment:
Uh, let’s see. “In time of peace” is just a preamble, and has nothing to do with the absolute right presented in the amendment. Rights can not be qualified in any way, even if there is text in the amendment explicitly doing so.
The words “no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause”, are just a preamble. How can the government be able to search your home sometimes (with a warrant), but not others? Aren’t these the same “people” as the First Amendment? Why would they all of a sudden use a different definition of “the people”? Obviously, warrants are no good. The government can never search your home under any circumstances.
Pretty silly, ain’t it?
Your interpretation isn’t automatically right just because you say it is.
repeating. If you examine the lengthy Wiki article Una Persson linked to, you will find that the phrase “bear arms” has quite a different meaning today than 200 years ago.