I’ve always felt the idea of armed militias fighting off a dictatorial government was mostly myth. As I’ve noted, state militia wouldn’t have been able to beat the regular army (which presumably would be siding with the federal government).
The real concern was felt by southern states and western states. They were concerned that the eastern states would control the central government and wouldn’t send national level troops to deal with local problems like killing Indians on the frontier or killing slaves when they revolted. So the southern states and the western states wanted to maintain the right to form their own militia units.
I don’t see a standard of reasonableness applied here. There is no history of the courts applying the 2nd amendment to machine guns, and a history of disregarding and denying the argument. No law is known to be constitutional unless it is included in the constitution itself. Even SCOTUS can change it’s mind in the future. There is nothing special about this law that justifies dismissal of charges because a lower court judge does not believe it is constitutional based on an unclear connection to a SCOTUS ruling about a completely different 2nd amendment matter.
If this is the only possible means to bring the case to a higher court without first obtaining a conviction then I have no objection to it but it is still an impractical means of achieving justice.
The second amendment was included to specifically allow citizens to murder Native Americans whenever they felt like stealing their land. It’s been perverted since then to allow people to literally get away with murder.
Sometimes lost in these discussions are the constitutions of the various states. In the Ohio Constitution it says,
The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.
Is there any doubt “The people” doesn’t apply to, well, the people? And as far as I know, no one has claimed that this is in conflict with the federal constitution.
If you’re saying that it’s self-evident and obvious that in this case “The People” refers to a collectivized government-run military organization, then I’ll just say that lawyers get rich arguing about these sorts of things.
ETA: I mentioned “The Embarrassing Second Amendment” upthread. I was rereading it and found the following passage thought-provoking:
Assume, as Professor Cress has argued, that the Second Amendment refers to a communitarian, rather than an individual right. We are still left the task of defining the relationship between the community and the state apparatus. It is this fascinating problem to which I now turn.
Consider once more the preamble and its reference to the importance of a well-regulated militia. Is the meaning of the term obvious? Perhaps we should make some effort to find out what the term “militia” meant to 18th century readers and writers, rather than assume that it refers only to Dan Quayle’s Indiana National Guard and the like. By no means am I arguing that the discovery of that meaning is dispositive as to the general meaning of the Constitution for us today. But it seems foolhardy to be entirely uninterested in the historical philology behind the Second Amendment.
I, for one, have been persuaded that the term “militia” did not have the limited reference that Professor Cress and many modern legal analysts assign to it. There is strong evidence that “militia” refers to all of the people, or least all of those treated as full citizens of the community.
Except that the Supreme Court has said reasonable restrictions can be applied.
See Heller- 2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’ s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
I mean, by a plain reading of the 1st Ad, Kiddy porn and copyright violations would be legal.
So, this is a one off by a judge who went too far.
The National Guard is now Federalized.
This is simply not true. In fact hunting down slaves wasnt even mentioned in the discussion. remember, we used the Militia in the revolutionary War, the War of 1812, The Civil War, and the Spanish American war.
The Founders all thought slavery was going away, in fact they never even mentioned it by name in the Constitution. What changed this was the Cotten Gin , and the enormous fortunes to be made in “KIng Cotton”- during that period the number of slaves in the USA more than quadrupled.
Yeah, I know some writer rewrote American history so that according to them, everything is Slavery- Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Bill of Rights, and even police- no slaves, no police according to them. Slavery was only important in the USA from about 1830 until the end of the Civil war- which indeed was based on Slavery.
True.
Right. If it hadnt been DC and two other cities out and out banning guns, the Supreme court would not have acted.
Nope. Well within the types of limits mentioned in Heller, etc.
I dunno, the Heller decision reiterated that none of the provisions of the Bill of Rights have ever been held to recognize or secure a boundless libertarian immunity from government interference; but the decision mentioned limitations on when and where but spoke next to nothing about what. Arguing that a certain type of gun is simply too good at being a gun is problematic when the entire point of guns is that they are potentially dangerous. A case could be made for banning deliberately disguised firearms such as guns hidden in cell phones or camouflaged as toy guns. In any event, it would constitutionally extremely problematic to say that a certain type of gun could be banned to the public but government agents might be given an explicit exception to that.
Why, the same way the laws against brewing and distilling alcohol were enforced in the 1920s and early 1930s.
The attempt might be made, but one of the responses might be that the guns were disguised as other items for the purpose of calming the populace down-on the surface, a good thing.
The Las Vegas massacre was something truly horrifying. So were many other shooting massacres.
There’s not going to be getting rid of 2A. Politically, it won’t happen.
So, I’d like to pre-emptively send out my thoughts and prayers, which will be with future un-named victims of future yet-unknown massacres. I’ll keep thinking and praying. And doing nothing except thinking and praying. Maybe that will fix everything.
Or maybe this: Trump gets reelected and his backers try to impose Project 2025. The center-left in the USA, rather than submit to the imposition of a dictatorial theocracy like in Heinlein’s Revolt in 2100, harken back to the radical Left’s brief love affair with guns during the Vietnam era. They arm themselves and, to paraphrase Claire Wolfe, finally shoot the bastards. They then reckon that maybe having access to firearms saved their butts and decide that maybe the 2nd Amendment has some things going for it.