Washington DC court rules that 2nd ammendment only applies to militias.
By
SpeedRacer, in Speakers Corner
QuoteSec. 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The milita of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are commissioned officers of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are: (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Here's the next step for the hoplophobes - that section 311 is unconstitutional because it discriminates against women.
The other issue is - does the 2nd amendment prevent the states from banning guns? This hasn't been decided...
My wife is hotter than your wife.
kbordson 8
QuoteHere's the next step for the hoplophobes - that section 311 is unconstitutional because it discriminates against women.
The other issue is - does the 2nd amendment prevent the states from banning guns? This hasn't been decided...
Besides the whole discrimation against women... (cuz it is... but in a weird way it kinda isn't ... but ......)
Anyway
QuoteArticle the fourth [Amendment II][4]
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.
The important thing is the point of the free State.... and if we, as the people, weren't able to defend against the government (and the militaries of the government) then we wouldn't be a free State. The right to keep and bear arms is to allow for the security of the free State... It's designed to allow us, We the People, to overthrow the government if it became too controlling.... and looking at where we are going now....
I'm not turning in any of my firearms. 
JohnRich 4
QuoteAm I the only one that finds it amusing that he is using a computer and the internet to argue that such "modern conveniences" are evil?
I don't think that he is saying that the internet is evil. He is just saying that if you want to apply the Constitution to only those things that existed at the time it was written, then Free Speech rights would not include the internet, telephones, or many other modern forms of communication. Clearly, that would be the wrong thing to do.
Principles of freedom are timeless, and should apply equally to whatever new technology comes along.
Andy9o8 3
QuoteArticle the fourth [Amendment II][4]
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.
Too many people analyze this clause in terms of what the words' meaning is today. But to deconstruct this clause properly, one must get inside the original authors' heads. This is crucial, I think.
JohnRich 4
Quotedoes the 2nd amendment prevent the states from banning guns? This hasn't been decided...
Well, federal gun laws are enforced within the States. So it seems to me that the federal law trumps the state law, and therefore a State could not ban guns.
On the other hand, if a State is allowed to ban guns contrary to the federal Constitution, then that should also mean that all federal gun control laws no longer apply within the States. And the feds aren't going to allow that to happen.
The fact is, the Constitution grants the federal government no authority to regulate guns. Period. However, the justification used for federal gun laws is the "interstate commerce" clause of the Constitution: they are allowed to regulate goods that move between states. But that argument gets to be very weak. There are guns manufactured entirely within a single state, yet those guns still can't be sold within that state in violation of federal laws. The feds argue that nothing can be manufactured without something originating from another state, such as the raw steel, the ore from which the steel was smelted, and so on. But stretching the logic like that, the feds could claim that they have the right to control literally everything. And they sure try.
JohnRich 4
QuoteToo many people analyze this clause in terms of what the words' meaning is today. But to deconstruct this clause properly, one must get inside the original authors' heads. This is crucial, I think.
Correct. And when you research what the framers of the Constitution meant by the 2nd Amendment, it is absolutely clear that it was intended as an individual right. However, the gun-o-phobes like to skip over that history and re-interpret it to suit themselves.
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_2nd.html
Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
Quote
I believe life as it was 200 years ago WAS healthier, happier, saner, simpler, though certainly, much tougher and more challenging..
If you were white, male, and an heir. Otherwise is was questionable to pretty shitty (blacks).
then you believe in the Santa Bunny and the Easter Claus as well.Quotebelieve life as it was 200 years ago WAS healthier, happier, saner, simpler
They didn't call it "depression" back then, they called it "Melancholia". And it was even more prevalent back then than it is now.
Its amazing how idealistic people are about the past. The fact is, generally, the past SUCKED MAJOR ASS!!!
Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
mnealtx 0
QuoteAm I the only one that finds it amusing that he is using a computer and the internet to argue that such "modern conveniences" are evil?
That was sort of the point of my post to him, yes....
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I know. Thought it needed reiterating. 
www.FourWheelerHB.com
QuoteWell, let's see. A militia is made up of...hmmm...individuals...
...weird...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia
~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~
kallend 2,182
QuoteQuoteWell, let's see. A militia is made up of...hmmm...individuals...
...weird...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia
The 2nd Amendment specifically states "well regulated", which would disqualify most of the definitions given.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
QuoteQuoteQuoteWell, let's see. A militia is made up of...hmmm...individuals...
...weird...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia
The 2nd Amendment specifically states "well regulated", which would disqualify most of the definitions given.
The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:
1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
Militia that we should all have a steak in.
~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~
kallend 2,182
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWell, let's see. A militia is made up of...hmmm...individuals...
...weird...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia
The 2nd Amendment specifically states "well regulated", which would disqualify most of the definitions given.
The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:
1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
Militia that we should all have a steak in.
Even if we restrict ourselves to that definition, I still maintain that the majority of militias are NOT well regulated.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
JohnRich 4
QuoteEven if we restrict ourselves to that definition, I still maintain that the majority of militias are NOT well regulated.
You think that most of the guns in the homes of average citizens are inoperable?
Side note: The subject title of thread is incorrect. The court hasn't so ruled yet - the case is just being heard and is under consideration.
I don't think you'll have much choice as the SCOTUS is appointed (NOT elected) for lifeQuoteIt is protection only if current courts agree that every citizen has the right to legally own firearms.
Has any federal court ever ruled that there it is a constitutional right to own firearms? (Not a leading question. I do not know the answer.) The most recent case I am (vaguely) familiar with concerned the citizens whose firearms were confiscated in Louisiana. But I believe that case was argued on the basis of property rights, that property had been illegally seized because there were no applicable laws prohibiting ownership.
The right may be assumed, but ultimately it comes down to how it is interpreted. If the Supreme Court determines (decides) that the Second Amendment applies only to militias, then it is clear we will not have that right. And if it is currently a right, there are a lot of people in New York City and D.C. who are being infringed upon.
Edited to add: I am not addressing whether or not we should have the right to own firearms in this post. Just addressing whether or not we do have that right at present. I have owned firearms since age thirteen, but it has always seemed clear to me that should my local, state or federal government decide to prohibit that ownership, I'm SOL. At least until the next election.
FallRate
I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.
kallend 2,182
QuoteQuoteEven if we restrict ourselves to that definition, I still maintain that the majority of militias are NOT well regulated.
You think that most of the guns in the homes of average citizens are inoperable?
Not even you can think guns are the same thing as militias.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
10 USC 311(a)
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
32 USC 313(a)
To be eligible for original enlistment in the National Guard, a person must be at least 17 years of age and under 45, or under 64 years of age and a former member of the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites