Please cite any SCOTUS ruling on the 2nd Amendment that explicitly decoupled the “militia” clause from the rest of it prior to Heller.
Heller did this. Miller most certainly did not. No other ruling that I’m aware of did, all your verbal gymnastics notwithstanding. That is the point. That’s why Heller is different, and may be subject to challenge and overruling in the future.
That’s not how claims work. You made a claim that SCOTUS has held that 2nd amendment granted a right. If that is true you should easily be able to cite it, but as of yet have not provided any cite. Your claim is unsupported, directly contradicted by the cite I offered, and false. I’m not sure how you reconcile your claim that SCOTUS has always held the 2nd granted something when I’ve quoted SCOTUS explicitly saying it does not grant anything.
I’ll focus on this one and address your false Miller claims after we dispose of this claim.
What I find fascinating is how people think they know what the “Founders’ intentions were” at all. I say this because the “Founders” began arguing about what the words meant from the moment the document was ratified. In some cases, the text is unambiguous but there are plenty of passages which can reasonably be understood in different ways. Although, the 2nd Amendment is a strange bird in that contemporary grammars clearly demonstrate there is only one way to understand the sentence as written if one considers the historical grammatical conventions in common usage among the educated members of society when the document was authored (i.e. as a right contingent upon the necessity of militia to a state’s security).
No, you’re deflecting and changing the argument and making fatuous ones. If the Second Amendment didn’t “grant a right”, it wouldn’t need to exist, would it, as it in fact does not in every other country in the first world that has all the same freedom guarantees as the US with that sole exception. Further, it’s been (falsely) claimed before that previous court cases have asserted an individual right, which was refuted here. Any such claim has always been linked to the militia clause, period. So once again:
Please cite any SCOTUS ruling on the 2nd Amendment that explicitly decoupled the “militia” clause from the rest of it prior to Heller.
There never was. That’s why Heller was such a big deal among it supporters.
No, but the amendment was not about imdividuals. It merely mentions arms as part of the miltia concept of the times. States were to be allowed militias. For law and order and defense from Brits.
It’s about “the right of the people,” which has always been understood to refer to individuals, as for example in the Fourth Amendment.
Why would I offer a cite for a claim that I never made? Does that also make sense in your world? You however, did make this claim:
I bolded your actual claim - you know, the one that is false. You have yet to actually offer a cite for this, why is that? Your claim is unsupported, directly contradicted by the cite I offered, and false. Rather than link to your own posts as your support, it would be quite simple to demonstrate your claim had even a chance of being accurate. All it would take is a SCOTUS holding - the fact that you have been unable to do so is quite telling as to the validity of your claim. Why you are sticking to such an obviously false claim is strange.
But here is the thing, even if you could find some SCOTUS holding, twist it into a form unrecognizable to support your cause, your claim would still be false. All it takes is a single SCOTUS holding pre-Heller that contradicts your claim, which I already provided from 1876, which I provided in post #25.
Ah, that’s going back to the argument the Founders had about including a BoR in the first place. As I’m sure you know, some didn’t want to include it because they felt it would imply that it was a complete accounting of rights. So no, the 2nd amendment’s existence does NOT imply that the right would not exist without it (the 2nd amendment).
It may seem like a mere semantic argument that Bone is making, but it is key to how many people (not all, but many) view rights.
And an important point too, because it highlights why the right wing is often wrong about the Constitution. They decry expansive rulings, forgetting that the Constitution does not give rights, but forces the state to protect some rights. We have other rights–enshrined in the Ninth Amendment. Which is conveniently forgotten.
Moderator Action
This has been answered factually and the thread is turning into enough of a debate that I think we can give this a shot in GD now.
Moving thread from General Questions to Great Debates.
Congress shall have the power to…To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia
Who are “the people,” as the Constitution uses the term?
And does anyone contend that “the people,” means different things in different paragraphs of the Constitution?
Look, it’s really not that complicated. The OP question was what it would take to overturn Heller, which led to a discussion about why Heller was so important in the first place. The statement that you seem to be having such a problem with – “until Heller, the only established ruling was that the Amendment granted an individual right to keep and bear arms for militia purposes” – might be clearer if I said “rulings” in the plural – it was a general statement about the fact that until Heller, the Court had never ruled on a 2nd Amendment distinction between an individual right for personal purposes and rights associated with militias. This is why I keep going back to asking you for a cite for when the Court ever did so. They did not.
And no, I didn’t just support my statements with links to my own posts – those posts have multiple citations. Now that we’re in GD territory, here’s another one:
To grasp the audacity of what Scalia & Co. pulled off, turn to the Second Amendment’s text: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” To find in that wording an individual right to possess a firearm untethered to any militia purpose, the majority performed an epic feat of jurisprudential magic: It made the pesky initial clause about the necessity of a “well regulated Militia” disappear. Poof! Gone. Scalia treated the clause as merely “prefatory” and having no real operative effect—a view at odds with history, the fundamental rules of constitutional interpretation, and the settled legal consensus for many decades.
“The Second Amendment was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several states,” then-Justice John Paul Stevens correctly noted in his minority opinion, joined by Justices David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer. “Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms.”
https://www.thenation.com/article/how-the-roberts-court-undermined-sensible-gun-control/
What are the rights, specifically, that are enshrined in the Ninth? Since in Griswold v. Connecticut Justices Brennan, Warren and Goldberg said
Cite.
If you mean that the Ninth Amendment gives the power to determine rights to the Supreme Court, that is contradicted by the Tenth, which reserves all un-enumerated powers to the states, or the people.
Regards,
Shodan
At the time the Second Amendment was passed the word "militia"was a plural noun (as derived from the Latin miles soldier). In every document contemporary with the Second Amendment it is always “the” militia. Yet because of the modern dichotomy between those who undergo military training and those who do not, by common usage the term has morphed into a singular- “a” militia is used to refer to a group or body of armed people. Imho this more than anything else has warped the debate on the subject.
It is simply not true that gun ownership was viewed as dependent upon military service. For one thing the entire male population was never subject to regular drills; indeed any attempt to do so would have been viewed with suspicion as an attempt to regiment the population. In the latter 18th century the only requirement incumbent upon the population at large was that every eligible male own a regulation musket and kit, and show up for annual or semi-annual musters.
The anti-gun crowd seems to have trouble wrapping their heads around the very idea of owning and carrying weapons as a fundamental right.
The Ninth confirms our rights not otherwise stated in the Constitution.
In other words, we have rights, independent from any sovereign. The Constitution establishes our state which has a duty is to protect our rights–some of which are explicitly described and others which are not.
The Ninth doesn’t give any powers to the state.
Furthermore, there’s still something called the “unorganized mlitia” in statutory law (10 U.S. Code § 311) , and all male citizens between the age of 17 and 45 who are NOT in the National Guard or Naval Militia (?) are part of it. More specifically, there’s the “militia” which is all males between 17 and 45, and it’s bifurcated into the NG/NM, and the "unorganized militia.
If the criteria on gun ownership is membership in “the militia”, and if the suitability of weapons for militia purposes is a yardstick for acceptability, then it follows that “assault weapons”, and in particular, the AR-15 style rifles substantially similar to those in use by the Regular Army and the National Guard would be specifically appropriate for people to own.
Fascinating.
The text of the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments compel the conclusion that abortion in the first trimester is protected, but the notion that the Second Amendment language means that the right of individuals to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is ludicrous?
A more basic question would be: is there some reason to adopt a completely different analytical and constructive method when reading the Second Amendment as opposed to the rest of the Constitution?
You keep asking for a cite for something I did not claim. None will be forthcoming because that’s not how cite requests work.
It’s not about the difference between “ruling” or “rulings”. It is a fundamental difference in the understanding of the 2nd amendment and SCOTUS jurisprudence. You claimed that SCOTUS held that the 2nd amendment **GRANTED **a right. I’m not sure how much more clear I can make it, but that claim is wrong. It’s obviously wrong, spectacularly wrong, and laughably wrong given the fact that I have produced a cite that directly contradicts your wrong and false, yet persistent claim.
You can’t support your claim because it is false. This isn’t a theoretical discussion about whether there exists inherent or natural rights. That is surely debatable. Your claim is wrong as a matter of fact because you claimed that SCOTUS held something that they did not. You could agree or disagree with their rulings and that’s no problem - but to do that it’d be good idea to actually understand what they have actually ruled.
You’re right - it isn’t that complicated. That’s why it’s so strange you are failing so hard to understand the depth of your error.
People is a plural noun. The people in groups, the well organized militias, had the right to defend thei village. It does not in any way address individuals. The matter was between the federal government and states or localities.
The point of the amendments is to limit federal authority and in some cases state aithority. Feds vs state, feds vs person. Trial by jury is an individual right. States can’t have the judge alone hang you.