arms could and would reasonably include hand guns, and hand guns were indeed weapons of personal possession during the FF’s time, so I’m not seeing the parsing. A reasonable debate on this subject would be to define what ‘arms’ include or be limited too, but saying that hand guns would be in that subset and that the FF’s would agree is reasonable. Because they didn’t specifically mention them (or any other weapon) does not make this parsing.
It does. But the right to bear arms doesn’t have to mean all arms. Machine guns are arms too.
A plain reading of the Second Amendment does not show a handgun ban to be unconstitutional. The government saying you’re only allowed to have long guns is not infringing the right to keep and bear arms. You’re still allowed to keep and bear arms, just not this particular kind.
This is more of a question of broadly or narrowly interpreting what the word “arms” means than it is an example of back channel tactics.
Back channel tactics, as used by those who wish to restrict ownership of weapons, are better illustrated historically by tactics like requiring a permit to own a weapon and then simply not issuing any permits. I can’t think of anything really comparable from the pro-gun side of the aisle.
Well, there are the wide spread fear campaigns by the NRA and others designed to destroy any reasonable discussion of the matter. It’s no wonder reasonable discourse is next to impossible if people are told beforehand that it’s all part of a secret plan to take away their rights.
I find that approach to the matter to be skeevy at best. With a wide enough definition of “arms” and a narrow enough definition of “allowed arms” people could be restricted to carrying switchblades.
I took “arms” to mean firearms. Besides, switchblades are already illegal. 
Do you have a better approach? It seems pretty arbitrary either way.
In the specific usage of the 2nd Amendment, pertaining to describing military / militia it means ‘properly functioning’ and/or ‘in operational order and condition’.
Interestingly, in this context the term “well regulated” has a direct antonym that has chugged along for centuries completely ignored by anti-gunners and thus free from the political agenda driven perverting seen in the last 75 years. Unsurprisingly, that term is “ill-regulated” and it is used in modern times to describe disordered troops and/or poor military condition and readiness.
Yes, there are some Americans that advocate government exceeding the powers granted to it using illegitimate “interpretations” of the 2nd Amendment. The Federalists feared precisely that usurpation which is why they arued against adding a bill of rights to the Constitution.
Yes but in reality it is a useless endeavor because SCOTUS has held that the right is not granted, given, created or otherwise established by the 2nd Amendment thus the right to arms is not in any manner dependent upon the words of the 2nd Amendment for its existence.
The leftist parsing, dissecting, reworking and redefining of the words used in the Amendment to try to invent a power to restrict the right to arms is an illegitimate and anti-constitutional endeavor and just exposes their disdain (if not pure, white-hot hatred) for the fundamental principles of conferred powers and retained rights of the Constitution.
Hyperbole admittedly, but it’s based on some significant kernels of fact: Obama is a liberal democrat from one of the most anti-gun states in the union, his record is mostly antigun, and he won’t be eligible for re-election so he doesn’t have to avoid alienating the pro-gun people. Does this mean he’s going on a crusade to limit guns as much as possible? Not necessarily but it bears watching.
Pretty much all of them that recognize and secure pre-existing, fully retained, fundamental rights.
Consider that the Federalists argued against adding any bill of rights to the Constitution because such “exceptions of powers not granted” were, under our constitution’s structure of conferred powers, absurdly redundant statements. They asked “why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do”?
Rights, including the right to keep and bear arms, don’t exist because of a certain precisely worded and exactingly defined enumeration in the “Bill of Rights” (or whatever “interpretation” of those words rules the current time). . . We possess those rights because We the People never granted to government a shred of power to allow it to even compose a thought about our rights – let alone act against them.
There’s not much significance to those kernels.
With the declaratory clause nothing was intended other than to re-affirm what was once a universally understood and accepted ‘general militia’ maxim (going back to Aristotle); that an armed citizenry dispenses with the need for a standing army (in times of peace) and the armed citizenry stands as a guard against foreign invaders and domestic tyranny (ensuring the free state).
To be perfectly clear, none of the legitimate authority for Congress to enact law to effect the organization, training, discipline and control (deployment) of the militia was established, modified or enhanced by the declaratory clause of the 2nd Amendment.
The only direction and authority for the organization, training, discipline and control of the militia is found in Article I § 8, clause 16 and Article II, § 2, clause 1. It was under those clauses’ authority the Militia Act of 1792 was written, establishing regulations for commonality of arms, organization and the training regimen to be performed by the states.
This is seen when one examines militia law; the 2nd Amendment has never been inspected to inform or held to instruct on any aspect of militia powers, federal or state. The 2nd Amendment has, as SCOTUS has said, “no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government” (Cruikshank & Presser).
You are perfectly backwards in your thinking. The existence of the right of the people to keep and bear arms is the means to fulfill the object of the Amendment (preservation of the general militia concept).
No.
WE the People conferred (surrendered) the powers “To declare war” and “To raise and support armies” etc, to the government through the Constitution and that includes the ownership of the weapons of war.
What We the People have conferred to government a citizen can not claim as a right.
OTOH, that which we have NOT conferred, the government can not claim a power (in this case, having any interest whatsoever in the personal arms of the private citizen).
We The People ought to have been more careful about empowering our government to provide for the general welfare, then.
That is one interpretation of the amendment. It is not the only one. There has been no need to rely on the 2nd amendment to maintain a militia so it’s an untested area. And the 2nd hasn’t been successful in restricting the right of the people to bear some arms either. I simply argue what the language clearly says. A militia is necessary to maintain the security of a free state. It doesn’t say the security of a free state must be secured. But in the way you say, since it’s simply expected that such security would be maintained there’s been no reason to discuss the matter. What a militia is, who it is, etc. are all questions not addressed by the 2nd.
Four pages of standard boilerplate and it was answered in the third post.
But amazingly, things remain in proportion.
Back in 1788 Madison said that the largest standing army a nation could sustain would be 1% of the total population. That is spot-on today; a little over 300 million people and 2.9 million active duty and reserves.
I’ll just let Madison speak for himself:
[INDENT]"The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, . . . "
James Madison, The Federalist #46[/INDENT]
Let’s scrutinize those numbers.
At that time there were about 3 million people in what would soon be the USA.
Standing army = 1% of all persons OR 4% of those “able to bear arms,” so, using the upper end of Madison’s “standing army” number, 30,000 . . .
30,000 / .04 = 750,000 citizens “able to bear arms,” minus the 500,000 citizens “with arms in their hands,” means 250,000 will need to borrow a weapon from their neighbor if events required it.
Since you think the framer’s ideas are outdated let’s see how Madison’s ratios have held up in the ensuing 224 years.
Again, in present day America there are 310 million or so “total souls;” the present day military force of America stands at about 2.9 million active duty and reserves so that ratio remains near spot-on to Madison’s formula of a nation’s “standing army” carrying capability.
So, simply by running Madison’s formula, 310,000,000 total souls tells us we should expect a force of 77,500,000 citizens “able to bear arms”.
The exact number of present day gun owners today is not known. Years ago the US Dept. of Justice estimated that 75+ million Americans own 300 million firearms. This is arguably the exact number presently “with arms in their hands” and so exceeds Madison’s original ratios by a few percentage points.
Madison envisioned in 1788 the “standing army” being outnumbered (“opposed” was the word he used) by armed citizens by a factor of 17 to 1; in present day America that ratio may have widened to as much as 25 to 1 (if upper estimates of the number of gun owners are to be accepted).
While the founders / framers did not envision every person being armed they certainly desired a significant percentage to be properly situated to resist government with violence.
That is one of the conditions the framers intended to preserve with the enactment of the 2nd Amendment and it seems the citizens have upheld their responsibility. That government is remiss and derelict in its duty to enact a structure of militia organization to serve its needs does not impact the right of the people one iota.
How is Obama’s record anti-gun? He’s signed two pro-gun bills, and no anti-gun bills that I know of.
The question was tested and settled long ago. There is a body of cases that deal with disputes between the federal and state governments over militia powers and the 2nd was found to offer no guidance or information on militia powers. There is one thing that we know from those militia cases though; the 2nd offers no protection for states against federal interference / overstepping on state militia powers (which means that the “state’s right” / “militia right” interpretations were dead concepts for decades before it sprouted in the lower federal courts in 1942).
???
Well, it ***is ***merely a dependent absolute declaratory clause . . . it can not stand alone as a sentence, it commands no action, it creates no structure nor directs any to be maintained and, as a dependent absolute clause, it can not be read to condition the independent restrictive clause . . .
Again, it is a declaratory clause stating a tenet, a principle of our republic.
Principles don’t need an enactment of law to exist, they are the foundation for the law.
The execution of that general militia principle is set out in Article I § 8, cl. 16 and it was under that clauses’ authority the Militia Act of 1792 was written, establishing regulations including who shall be liable for militia duty and how they should be armed.
The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with militias beyond recognizing that they are a residual benefit of the citizen’s right to arms. The actionable clause of the 2nd Amendment speaks only to private citizens and their personal arms . . . Again, militia arms are addressed in the body of the Constitution and subsequent law enacted under that authority (Militia Act of 1792). There is no “right” to militia, its form, function and action is completely a power conferred to Congress, . . . that is until We the People rescind our consent to being governed.
Mayor Fenty threw a monkey wrench into the hopes and dreams of Obama and the anti-2nd Amendment left. That the Obama administration (and the merry band of anti-liberty Dems in Congress) spent the last 4 years politically inactive advancing gun control is only a benefit of Fenty’s stupidity in appealing Parker v DC. It is NOT evidence of a suddenly acquired respect for the traditions and heritage of hunting or target shooting or any acceptance, tolerance or respect for any rights claimed by gun owners.
All citizens who cherish the Constitution should be aware that Obama has done a 180 from his famous interview on the reach of legislatures and the courts. Now that he has the power of judicial appointment the bench is where he sees his social justice and economic “redistributive change” agenda coming to fruition (which of course includes gun control, AKA the power to resist government).
So, his major anti-gun actions thus far are walking and breathing and biding their time:
Elana Kagan
Sonya Sotamayor
and many more in lower federal courts . . .
I stand corrected.
But I refuse to be bound by the determinations of committees who can’t punctuate worth a fig. Commas mean things.
Seriously, rewrite the meshuga thing already.