And do we have anything resembling a “well-regulated militia” at this time?
No. You people are being unconstitutional..
I believe you’re correct, but bear in mind that along with other provisions of Article One the federal government is reserved the authority to issue “letters of marque”- licenses for privateers to actually operate in time of war. So presumably the federal government could regulate privateering to the point of banning armed civilian ships- it just didn’t see the need to initially.
Would it currently be legal to form a “well-regulated militia” and have them drill in a public square(or even private property)?
I don’t know, I’m not American.
Really, I don’t see the trouble you all are having with the amendment.
To me it is clear that the intent was to not have a standing army but militia based army, a ‘peoples army’.
In the 18th century sense, that would entail to have the militia members have their own muskets and train with them.
Clearly, this is just an outdated law. It was never envisioned as the right of everyman to own a Glock.
Yeah, I remember the previous threads on this subject. Now if I could only remember where those landmines were pla…
Sure. :rolleyes:And as for “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Well hell, no newspaper uses a ‘press” anymore, so the gov’t can abridge newspapers or Blogs or signs or anything they want now. :rolleyes:Obviously this was only meant to preserve stuff printed on a actual hand press, since anything else allows for such wide public distribution as to be dangerous. :dubious:
Non sequitur much?
It isn’t a non sequitur. If one ammendment can be shrugged off simply as “outdated law” then any of them can.
sigh The text about the militias DID mean something. No one is denying that. Again, look at the First. See how they are talking about multiple things in there? Notice how the first draft of the Second is broken up similarly? That’s because the FF’s thought that militias were important…AND the right to keep and bear arms by the private citizenry ALSO was important.
No pro-gun people are saying it didn’t mean anything…the thrust of the argument in this thread by presumed pro-gun folks is that IT DOESN’T MEAN ANYTHING TODAY. Why? Because, as you noted, we don’t use militias anymore and we have a big ass standing army. The point the pro-gun folks are trying to convey is that you could take out the militia part of the Amendment and nothing would or more importantly SHOULD change.
So, no…it’s not unfair to say that only one side is parsing here, as that has been the standard modus operandi of the anti-gun faction for decade. Pointing out that the FF’s were pretty clearly wanting a ‘right’ to personal ‘arms’ ownership for the citizenry isn’t the same thing as trying to parse the Amendment to make it say what the anti-gun crowd wants it to say, especially when what they want it to say is pretty clearly the opposite of the original intent of the authors.
Yes it is, because it is an absurd, very tortured attempt at equivalence.
But in principle, yes, any law, even those written by FOUNDING FATHERS can become outdated.
Yeah, you skipped a comma.
The National Guard?
I took it out for clarity.
Almost the same as the Army nowadays, isn’t it?
Well, shortly after the 2nd Amendment was passed congress passed the Militia Acts of 1792. It said, among other things:
I think it is clear those militias are a thing of the past.
So this was updated in the Militia Act of 1903 which got us the National Guard and were under the authority of the Army Reserve.
So yeah, the 18th century concept of a militia that the FFs were envisioning is out of date today.
I somewhat disagree, but I think that the “well-regulated Militia” clause informs how we should treat with the right to keep and bear arms.
Specifically, it seems to me to imply civilian ownership of militia/military quality arms, AND allow for a requirement that said civilians be “well-regulated” in the military sense–that is, adequately trained with said weaponry, required to maintain it so that it can be produced at need, etc.
The “nuclear weapons” argument can be at least semi-reasonably sidestepped if one defines “arms” as “firearms”.
My interpretation is that the initial clause, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” is the reason for the right to keep and bear arms. Four SCOTUS agree with me on that, so I’m not way out in left field.
Furthermore, the reason should help us to understand the right being protected, and its extent.
Clearly, the text makes no limitation on the definition of “arms”, so the nuclear option should be protected by the constitution. Yet, even gun ownership enthusiasts maintain that it is constitutional to impose some limits on the definition of “arms”.
My belief is that in helping to define what “arms” are, we should refer to the original intent. In doing so, we note that the intent no longer applies at all.
BTW, I’m not a gun owner, but I’m an NRA-rateddistinguished expert marksman, and my non-gun-ownership is simply because I have other hobbies now, and my wife wouldn’t approve. I feel strongly that we should be allowed to own guns for hunting. I’m not convinced that laws banning, say, handgun ownership would be a good idea in general.
So, I’m really more pro-gun than anti-gun. But I don’t believe the constitution was intended to prohibit any kind of regulation against weapons of war. (I think it was an intentionally weaselly-worded statement to make the committee happy, but that’s another thing really.)
Regardless, SCOTUS ruled against my interpretation. I agree with the dissent that it was judicial activism, but it’s the law of the land, like it or not.
Actually, the SCOTUS majority ruling states that it can be ignored.
To not ignore it means we can limit the right based on the intent of preserving the right. SCOTUS ruled that we cannot limit the right based on the intent clause, using strictly textual grammatical interpretation.
That’s an incorrect parsing of the sentence. There is no “and” nor is there a semicolon. The first clause is not even a complete sentence. It’s a reason not a requirement. To prove that to yourself, try reading the amendment without the latter part (that the right shall not be abrogated). It doesn’t stand.
The bit about militias is not granting a right. It is not the same as the laundry list of rights in the 1st Amendment.
The bit about the militias is giving the rationale for having people keep and bear arms. It sets out the purpose the following right is supposed to serve.
Since militias are a thing of the past I would submit it makes the right to keep and bear arms part the bit that is now essentially meaningless.
ETA: And before anyone says it I know the SCOTUS deems the militia part superfluous.
The National Guard has been part of the regular military for a long time. They are, in practice, reserve units that the governors of the states are able to use under limited circumstances.
Some of the states still have state guards or state militias. Here is the home page for the Texas State Guard. To the best of my knowledge, none of these organizations are in any danger of being confused with a real military. At another board, I was involved in a discussion with a member of the Texas State Guard. He was evasive, but when pressed finally admitted that what they do isn’t up to the standards of a peacetime Reserve or National Guard unit (monthly drill and annual training activation), much less anything like a regular Army or Marine Corps unit does. From what I have gathered looking over their websites, these State Guard and State Militia units seem to consist overwhelmingly of old guys who were in the military a long time ago and wannabe’s who for one reason or another were denied enlistment in the national military. I don’t believe any of them actually have organized training with military type weapons which, if they were real militia like the FF’s envisioned, would be at the heart of what they do.