# The 2nd Amendment, Militias, and the threat of secession. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 30, 2010, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2nd-amendment-militias-and-the-threat-of-secession/545003 "2010-06-30T00:08:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2010, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2nd-amendment-militias-and-the-threat-of-secession/545003/81 "2010-07-02T13:34:33Z")
[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100701/ap\_on\_re\_us/us\_chicago\_gun\_ban](http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100701/ap_on_re_us/us_chicago_gun_ban) And now we know what Daley wants. Four hour gun class, one hour training at a range. No ranges permitted within city limits. (It’s a fun old catch, that catch-22.) Mandatory gun locks (which, I believe, was part of what was struck down in Heller, as self-defense issues conflict), no carrying the weapon outside of the house, on your own property, even on the porch or in garage. And a mandatory registry of all gun owners, with the list distributed, with names and addresses, to police, fire fighters, and emergency workers. Said list will, of course, instantly be given to the criminal element. Not nearly as insane as I was expecting. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2010, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2nd-amendment-militias-and-the-threat-of-secession/545003/82 "2010-07-02T17:06:46Z")
> [@E-Sabbath](#): > > [http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100701/ap\_on\_re\_us/us\_chicago\_gun\_ban](http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100701/ap_on_re_us/us_chicago_gun_ban) > > And now we know what Daley wants. Four hour gun class, one hour training at a range. No ranges permitted within city limits. (It’s a fun old catch, that catch-22.) > > Mandatory gun locks (which, I believe, was part of what was struck down in Heller, as self-defense issues conflict), no carrying the weapon outside of the house, on your own property, even on the porch or in garage. > > And a mandatory registry of all gun owners, with the list distributed, with names and addresses, to police, fire fighters, and emergency workers. Said list will, of course, instantly be given to the criminal element. > > Not nearly as insane as I was expecting. Gun training sounds reasonable. No gun stores or ranges sucks but is within a city’s authority to zone businesses. Gun locks OR lock boxes, the latter seems reasonable enough especially in houses with children. Registration- fine in theory, let’s see if it gets abused. The legally shakiest thing in there is no guns on your own property outside the walls of your house. In general the courts have traditionally upheld that property owners have strong rights on their property. And of course the proposed laws don’t even consider licensed carry. Still, one thing at a time. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2010, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2nd-amendment-militias-and-the-threat-of-secession/545003/83 "2010-07-02T18:40:59Z")
> [@Punisher\_11B](#): > > I never once said that guns were manufactured in Mexico, not one time. Please read all the posts before you try to shove your misinformed words on me. In fact I said that the largest single cashe of guns found were made in Yugoslavia found still in their packing grease. This is what you said: > [@](#): > > Sure they would, most criminals don’t get their guns by robbing gun owners. (I’m sure some do). They get them on the black market which come from drug cartels shipping them in from another country. Look at what is going on down on the US / Mexico border. Loads and loads of drugs and guns are coming over. Your post about the AK-47s didn’t come until later. Just judging by this post (and the posts made up to that point) it certainly seemed like you were implying that the guns were coming from Mexico (and I guess you still are saying that theya re coming from mexico (unless you mean someplace else when you say drug cartels) but they aren’t Mexican made guns). So simmer down. I agree that criminals don’t get their guns from robbing gun owners (for the most part) but they don’t get them from another country either. It would be like a Frenchman buying Oregon wine, what would be the point. This is reality: > **[frontline: hot guns: "How Criminals Get Guns" | PBS](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html)** So can we stop pretending that the US isn’t the source of guns for most US criminals. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2010, 11:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2nd-amendment-militias-and-the-threat-of-secession/545003/84 "2010-07-03T11:24:42Z")
I’m pretty sure that ‘mandatory registration with distribution’ is designed to be abused, given the mayor’s specific attitude towards guns. I’m not saying that it would always be so, but I am pretty sure that in Chicago, it would be. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2010, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2nd-amendment-militias-and-the-threat-of-secession/545003/85 "2010-07-05T22:11:47Z")
I think that this could be simplified even more. Let’s say that we had Amendment 3(b) of the Bill of Rights that said “Unimpeded travel, being necessary for the freedom of citizens to assemble, the right of the people to keep horses shall not be infringed”. What would that mean for today’s world? 1. Since we don’t need horses to travel, could the government (any level) outlaw horses? or 2. Since it plainly says that we have a right to keep horses, would we continue to have that right, so long as we were only using them to attend a lawful assembly? or 3. Could we keep them even if we only wanted to keep them as pets or ride around for recreation? It seems that the different answers to the 2nd follow along the same lines. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2010, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2nd-amendment-militias-and-the-threat-of-secession/545003/86 "2010-07-05T22:40:15Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > I think that this could be simplified even more. Let’s say that we had Amendment 3(b) of the Bill of Rights that said “Unimpeded travel, being necessary for the freedom of citizens to assemble, the right of the people to keep horses shall not be infringed”. > > What would that mean for today’s world? > > 1. Since we don’t need horses to travel, could the government (any level) outlaw horses? > or > 2. Since it plainly says that we have a right to keep horses, would we continue to have that right, so long as we were only using them to attend a lawful assembly? > or > 3. Could we keep them even if we only wanted to keep them as pets or ride around for recreation? > > It seems that the different answers to the 2nd follow along the same lines. In that case, if the purpose or intent of the amendment was unclear I would go back to contemporary discussions of the subject to determine what the proponents of the amendment thought of horses, travel and freedom of assembly. If written records indicated that the proponents of the amendment decried feudal laws reserving the privilege of riding horses to the nobility and the king’s cavalry, then I would say that they were asserting that common citizens had a right to keep and ride horses. ETA: and upon reflection that’s not as snarky an answer as I first imagined it. The right to own and control what could conceivably be used as a mount in battle is exactly the sort of things authoritarian governments might seek to ban. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2010, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2nd-amendment-militias-and-the-threat-of-secession/545003/87 "2010-07-06T01:19:33Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > I think that this could be simplified even more. Let’s say that we had Amendment 3(b) of the Bill of Rights that said “Unimpeded travel, being necessary for the freedom of citizens to assemble, the right of the people to keep horses shall not be infringed”. > > What would that mean for today’s world? Is there any doubt some damn fool would insist it guaranteed the right to ride horses into churches and saloons? ---
**Author:** ![Todderbob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e47774/32.png) [@Todderbob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Todderbob)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2010, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2nd-amendment-militias-and-the-threat-of-secession/545003/88 "2010-07-06T01:26:06Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Is there any doubt some damn fool would insist it guaranteed the right to ride horses into churches and saloons? If the owner/proprietor doesn’t object, why shouldn’t they be allowed to ride their horses into a saloon/church? Hell, drive in theaters are popular, maybe ride in sermons are the next big thing… ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2010, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2nd-amendment-militias-and-the-threat-of-secession/545003/89 "2010-07-07T03:24:22Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > In that case, if the purpose or intent of the amendment was unclear I would go back to contemporary discussions of the subject to determine what the proponents of the amendment thought of horses, travel and freedom of assembly. For this hypothetical let’s just assume that the contemporary discussions show something totally anachronistic. Say that the British soldiers used to steal horses of prominent men in the countryside before meetings to prevent free assembly. Or whatever; some reason that there is unanimous, 100% agreement among all scholars that the reasoning has no real meaning for 2010 society. Can we claim the right to have horses? ---
**Author:** ![Todderbob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e47774/32.png) [@Todderbob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Todderbob)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2010, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2nd-amendment-militias-and-the-threat-of-secession/545003/90 "2010-07-07T03:45:25Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > For this hypothetical let’s just assume that the contemporary discussions show something totally anachronistic. Say that the British soldiers used to steal horses of prominent men in the countryside before meetings to prevent free assembly. Or whatever; some reason that there is unanimous, 100% agreement among all scholars that the reasoning has no real meaning for 2010 society. > > Can we claim the right to have horses? You’re trying to say the analogy is that the reasoning behind the 2nd amendment is anachronistic, but you haven’t show that yet. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2010, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2nd-amendment-militias-and-the-threat-of-secession/545003/91 "2010-07-07T04:01:39Z")
> [@Todderbob](#): > > You’re trying to say the analogy is that the reasoning behind the 2nd amendment is anachronistic, but you haven’t show that yet. I’m not trying to say that the 2nd is anachronistic. I am trying to say that even IF it is, can we still just waive away gun rights? ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2010, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2nd-amendment-militias-and-the-threat-of-secession/545003/92 "2010-07-07T04:55:34Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > For this hypothetical let’s just assume that the contemporary discussions show something totally anachronistic. Say that the British soldiers used to steal horses of prominent men in the countryside before meetings to prevent free assembly. Or whatever; some reason that there is unanimous, 100% agreement among all scholars that the reasoning has no real meaning for 2010 society. > > Can we claim the right to have horses? Again, I would have to say go back to the original debate to determine just what the right was supposed to be: the right to possess and ride a horse? The right to travel freely? The right to possess means of rapid transportation? The right of assembly? Generally in our Constitution, rather than attempting to enumerate an axiomatic theory of rights, the Framers simply cut to the chase and listed what actions were to be forbidden that they felt would infringe those rights. For example, ex post facto laws are forbidden. They don’t get into why they’re forbidden, or relate the history of how ex post facto laws were used in England, or the morality of making people guilty of a crime after the fact; they simply ban it. You would have to research records of the exact debate over the Second Amendment to find out why they chose to phrase it as they did. My wild-assed-guess is that the reason they mention the militia at all is because it speaks to the fact that the proposed Constitution gave the Federal government authority over the militia, and therefore the authors of the 2nd were pointing out that if Congress were to have authority over the militia, there had to _be_ a militia- a mass of citizens armed with their own guns. IOW, the clauses of the Constitution giving the federal Congress authority over the militia were not to be used to “regulate” the militia out of existence, in the sense of ordering the populace to “stand down” and surrender their weapons forever. In the narrow legalistic sense, the issue of whether provisions of the Constitution are limited to the stated purpose of a dependent clause had been decided. The Supreme Court in one case rejected the claim that a copyright law was invalid if it didn’t meet the rationale of the copyright clause of the Constitution: [Eldred v. Ashcroft - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eldred_v._Ashcroft). ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2010, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2nd-amendment-militias-and-the-threat-of-secession/545003/93 "2010-07-07T17:38:02Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > No gun stores or ranges sucks but is within a city’s authority to zone businesses. Except that if the so-called “gun show loophole” is closed by Federal or State law, then there will in effect be no lawful way for a gun owner in the city to acquire a gun within the city. > [@](#): > > Gun locks OR lock boxes, the latter seems reasonable enough especially in houses with children. …except that as E-Sabbath noted, _Heller_ specifically threw out gun locks and lockboxes as they prevented the self-defense use of the gun. Some of the law is an un-Constitutional farce from the get-go, and just another way for the Mayor to take tax dollars which could have been spent actually doing something about the outrageous corruption and ineptitude of his own office and the Chicago police, and use it instead to fight a losing court battle to satisfy his own turgid ego. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2nd-amendment-militias-and-the-threat-of-secession/545003.md?page=4)