The Powers That Be in any lobbying group exist to maintain that lobbying group first, and achieve the goals of the group a distant second. Neither the NRA nor the anti-gun groups feel secure in what the Supreme Court will decide, so it is in their best interest to keep the issue from going that far. The Supremes don’t want to touch it, because save abortion, it’s the hottest of the hot-button issues out there. So now it looks like it will come to a head, and nobody is happy.
Hm. If the National Guard were truly under State jurisdiction, integration might have gotten a lot more interesting. It must, therefore, be under Federal jurisdiction, but given to the States in peacetime.
Hm. It seems it started out State and was turned Federal during a period from 1903 to 1933. The unorganized militia remains well-regulated, but unorganized.
Wow, you’re such a tough guy. Guns really make you a man, eh? :rolleyes:
Well, it’s good to see that someone correctly understands the issue raised in Miller, which is not the question of whether or not the Second Amendment applies to individuals, but rather is the question of whether or not a specific type of weapon is within the scope of the term “arms”.
Wouldn’t the militia only be those that have actually been enrolled in the militia?
No - the point of the Second Militia Act was that it required that all eligible citizens enroll in the militia and, within six months, arm themselves accordingly.
Except, of course, when the Feds take control of the Guard. It can do so, correct? Or am I totally off base?
Marc
Right, that seems to be the only actual “decision” in that decision.
And several States still have a State Militia, which has tanks, cannons, machineguns and ect, so the National Guard can not be the only Militia.
Uh, you hadn’t done any elaborating at that point either.
Perhaps you should have remembered that when you insinuated that I was lying.
That wasn’t meant to be inflammatory. It was merely a comment on the fact that you simply quoted the text of a Wikipedia article without making any actual argument. If it sounded inflammatory, I apologize. What did you think was inflammatory about it?
Mealymouthed:
hesitant to state facts or opinions simply and directly
I think that’s a fair characterization of your passive-aggressive “I won’t accuse you of lying” quip.
Sorry, lost you - it was your contention that it was “well-established”. Are you conceding that my side of the argument has merit?
Indeed it is all in the thread, and it looks like I will have to piece it back together to dispel your blatant mischaracterization:
As you can clearly see, the statement you made (that I bolded) was in direct response to my post. Where you’re getting the idea that I hadn’t posted yet is beyond me. If you go back to that post, you can see that you quoted me directly above your response.
And once again, you have made an implication that I’m being dishonest, when you said I’m “not telling the whole story here”.
You have a strange idea of what a personal attack is. Saying that I think you cherry-picked your sources is not a personal attack. I’m familiar with these types of arguments: The NRA has scoured writings from the time, found a lot of quotes, and disseminated them on the web. There are also some pro-gun books out that contain such quotes. The problem is that if one starts with the purpose of finding evidence to support the already-held conclusion that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right, one is of course only going to select what supports his position. I’ll agree that some of the founding fathers were gun enthusiasts, and that it’s possible to find personal writings to this effect, but that proves nothing.
So are we done with this silly argument about who “attacked” who, or are you going to continue with this?
Right, but there are still two distinct groups. Group A, which are 18-45 year olds that are not enrolled in the militia, and Group B, which are 18-45 year olds enrolled in the militia. The fact that the law says that all 18-45 year olds are required to be in Group B doesn’t negate the existance of Group A as a classification. An 18 year old male in the 1790’s who did not own a gun, and was not enrolled in the militia would be in violation of this law, but he still would not be in the militia.
To use an analogy, cars can be divided in to two groups. Group A, cars without seatbelts, and Group B, cars with seatbelts. The law today says that all cars must have seatbelts, i.e. all cars must belong to Group B, but that doesn’t deny the possibility that a car could be made without a seatbelt.
Quick and dirty:
1. Arms: borne and operated by one person, typically to be used against another person. A handgun, rifle, or shotgun.
2. Ordnance: borne and operated by one or more persons, typically to be used against enemy material (armored vehicles, aircraft, buildings, fortifications, etc.,) or in an “area effect/area denial” capacity. Machineguns, mortars/artillery, rocket/missile launchers, mines, and flamethrowers all fit this criteria.
This mostly comes from military, not legal definitions.
What? You’ve never heard of Selective Service?
Only until it is called up for Federal service, in which case it is exclusively a federal force, beyond the jurisdiction of the state executive. See Perpich v. Dept. of Defense.
Not to tell you your business, but this position was also upheld in the Supreme Court, in U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990).
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Elvis is about the biggest anti-gun nutter on the SDMB!
No, he’d still be in the militia; he just would have failed to let the militia know. That is, legally, he’d be considered a member of the militia.
Here’s a more saliant analogy: the law forbids convicted sex offenders from living within 500 feet of an elementary school, and requires them to register their location with the police. A particular convicted sex offender moves in next door to an elementary school and fails to register with the police.
He’s STILL a sex offender, and his presence next to the school is still illegal, even though he never registered himself as a sex offender.
At the time, those two rights were the same. Since many needed to keep a gun to be in the militia, it wouldn’t have been possible to bear arms without keeping arms. Both “rights” are consistent with the purpose of participating in a state militia.
Here’s where the controversy lies: The pro gun-control argument is that since those kinds of militias don’t exist anymore, that the right that goes along with membership in a militia is moot. DC made this argument (although apparently not in so many words) in the present case. Although DC didn’t use these words, the court characterized DC’s argument as saying that the Second is a “dead letter”. The right still exists, but doesn’t come into play when a person is arguing for an individual right. It’s worth noting that, even in rejecting this argument, the court felt it was obvious that “militia” is not synonymous with “the people”.
The pro gun-rights argument, however, is that even though militias of the form that existed at the time are gone, the Second still protects an individual right to own a gun. [I hope I’m expressing the argument correctly.] A more radical argument seems to be that militias still exist because “militia” is synonymous with “people” (which, as I said, was rejected by the court).
This is an interesting argument to me, and it appears to me to be the argument the court made in Miller. I have heard many pro-gun arguments to the effect that the opening clause of the 2nd is simply “explanatory”, and cannot be construed as to modify in any way the “absolute” right of “the people” in the second clause. Now I don’t agree with that argument, but I do understand it.
But this other argument I have a little trouble with. It would appear to be saying that the opening clause does limit the right enumerated in the second clause, but only insomuch as the type of weapon that is allowed, and that the right to own a weapon is sacrosanct. Further, this limitation on the type of weapon is argued to be determined by what would be used in a militia, even if it’s not being used that way.
This seems a rather arbitrary distinction to me. To say that the opening clause limits you to only owning a weapon that you could use in a militia, but that you can have the weapon even if you’re not using it for a militia, seems a strange place to draw the line. Seems more like a justification for a conclusion that has already been drawn.
Did I get whooshed? 
Except that Group A (people, not cars) is automatically enrolled in the Unorganized Militia. Just by existing, they are the Unorganized Militia. Note that this has nothing to do with whether or not they are “well regulated” because, when called forth into service, they will be subject to the various military training regimes, disciplines, and regulations (the UCMJ, or Uniform Code of Military Justice), thus becoming a “well regulated” militia.
The fact that they, as the unorganized militia, are not necessarily “well regulated” up to military standards does not exclude them from being part of the overall “capital-M” Militia; parsing the legislation that fine would make it thinner than tissue paper. Being enrolled in the U.S. Selective Service is all the “regulation” Congress has seen fit to demand (to my knowledge, at least).
Well, that and the various Federal gun control laws prohibiting felons, drug users, expatriates, the mentally incompetent, etc., from possessing firearms. Which, as it happens, coincides closely with most of the bars to military service.
Wrong. You’re indulging in your own caricatures again. They do have their responsible uses, and I’ve even told you so before.
Now: The recognition that the 2nd, as existing law and existing binding interpretations stand, protects only the National Guard’s inventory and has jack shit to do with anybody else’s, is entirely in the realm of fact, not desire, not your desire nor mine nor anyone else’s. That is a different subject.
As I keep pointing out here, albeit with limited effect, the people empowered to make the interpretation have done so. That’s it. Either live with it or get an amendment going, but quit whining about how you think it’s mistaken; that’s utterly useless.
You can’t call someone a “nutter” if you can’t even call them wrong, ya know.
Yes, lowbrass, that was a joke. See the thingy at the end?
And they explained in some detail that that meaning is? That the principle on which the finding was based was? Bueller? :dubious: Come on now, pal.
We’re not going to see you explain why you’re so “happy” at seeing a SC ruling flouted either, are we?
SteveMB gets it, though, and thanks.
MEBuckner, sorry for letting someone else’s pretense that he hasn’t been answered get to me. It does take a few posts reflecting mere obtuseness (in this case a refusal to read the information already linked) to get me to that point, in my own defense.
And there is the potential that they will do so again, and this time make what I see as the correct ruling. Dare I once more point out all the cases where previous injustices were rectified by the SCOTUS without a Constitutional amendment, or will you just ignore them again?
Very valid observation. I don’t agree that Miller is on point here – but assuming arguendo that it is, here’s a good opportunity for the Court to change a ruling to conform more to the textualist view of the Second Amendment, a change I’m always happy to see. So if, in fact, Miller controls this is, then the DC Circuit has just lobbed up a request to overturn it.
I will bet, however, that the Court (a) grants cert, (b) upholds the DC Circuit, and © does NOT characterize it as overturning Miller.
So, the various State Militias are all illegal? :dubious:
http://www.homestead.com/calsmrnavhis/smr1.html
http://www.kysm.org/
http://www.ct.ngb.army.mil/militia/militia.asp
But although you do keep saying it, repitition does not make it right.SCOTUS has made no such decision, other than to rule that sawed off shortguns are not legit.
You certainly sit back and *hope * for a complete reversal, something that’s been extremely rare in the past. You can certainly sit back and hope that there will somehow be an overwhelming shift of public opinion in your favor to the extent that the Court will see its “error” (an error which seems to consist primarily of being contrary to your preferred outcome), while you keep whining about it in the meanwhile. If you wish. But *nobody * is obliged to pay attention to you.
Or you can go out and actually try to *fix * the problem instead. It’s up to you.
Bricker, it’s certainly odd that what you claim is the “textualist view” requires *ignoring * half of the amendment itself. :dubious: You know, the half the Court *did * pay attention to when making the ruling you poutingly claim doesn’t apply? The part that forms the *very basis * for the applicable ruling, as I just pointed out to you earlier?