What if the NRA president was shot?

[MsRobyn]

*Originally posted by minty green *
**But Tank is wrong, Airman. Look up the state and federal militia statutes sometime. They make a clear and unambiguous distinction between the “organized” militia (the National Guard) and the “unorganized” militia (Joe Six-Pack). **

BTW, right now I’m in the National Guard. I’ll be keeping those guns, thank you very much.

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

sigh

The above post was me. Whattayagonnado?

[minty_green]

Yeah, there ain’t no girls allowed in the militia!

[Philly_Style]

*Originally posted by MSU 1978 *
**The Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment. If they wanted individual firearm ownership to be an individual right, then why did they not omit the first half of the amendment? I have to assume that they were much more careful and meticulous about wording a constitutional amendment than in making these other quotes. **

I’m inclined to agree with this view. The founders created a living document, mindful of changes that would certainly occur.

I also believe that when view as a whole, this would appear to support “regulated”, or controlled militias, not the Montana Freeman sort.

I have to admit though, there are few issues where american nazis agree more closely with a segment of mainstream america. The goverment would have to have sinister reasons for wanting to control this potent menance.

LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

[tracer]

*Originally posted by MSU 1978 *
**And from from the American Bar Association **

The controversy over the meaning of the Second Amendment exists only in the public debate over gun control. Few issues have been more distorted and cluttered by misinformation than this one. There is no confusion in the law itself. The strictest gun control laws in the nation have been upheld against Second Amendment challenge, including local bans on handguns. The Supreme Court enunciated in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) what, over fifty years later, remains clearly the law of this country – that the scope of the people’s right to bear arms is limited by the introductory phrase of the Second Amendment regarding the necessity of a “well regulated militia” for the “security of a free State.” In Miller, the Court held that the “obvious purpose” of the Amendment was “to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of…” the state militias and cautioned that the Amendment “must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.”

It’s a shame to see an organization with as much legal know-how as the American Bar Association be so blatantly wrong – or at least, so blatantly misleading – in its analysis of U.S. v. Miller.

I’ve read U.S. v. Miller. And, yes, the “well-regulated militia” portion of the 2nd Amendment featured prominently in the decision. But not in the way that the American Bar Association implies! The gist of the case was that a firearm that wasn’t something a well-regulated militia would use does not fall under the definition of “arms” for purposes of the 2nd Amendment. And that’s all. The judges’ Opinion did not say that the right is limited to members of the well-regulated militia, or that the amendment protects a state’s right rather than an individual’s right. To this day, there is disagreement among the Federal courts as to whether the 2nd Amendment’s Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a State Right or an Individual Right.

[minty_green]

*Originally posted by tracer *
The judges’ Opinion did not say that the right is limited to members of the well-regulated militia, or that the amendment protects a state’s right rather than an individual’s right.

Nor did that excerpt from the ABA. It said only that Miller held “that the scope of the people’s right to bear arms is limited by the introductory phrase of the Second Amendment regarding the necessity of a ‘well regulated militia’ for the ‘security of a free State.’” That is entirely accurate, and makes no claims about whether it’s a personal right or a right applicable only to well-regulated militia members.

To this day, there is disagreement among the Federal courts as to whether the 2nd Amendment’s Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a State Right or an Individual Right.

That’s corrrect, if you chance “To this day” to read “Since 2001,” and if when you say “disagreement” you mean “the Fifth Circuit against every other federal court of appeals that has considered the issue.” The federal courts have already decided pretty overwhelmingly against the individual rights interpretation. I logged the cases in my first post here.