NationStates Jolt Archive

The U.S. Constitution doesn't support individual gun ownership: "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."

A Militia is a group, not an individual. The purpose of the militia was to protect it self from forigen wars. Ie. they were surroned by the French, British, and the Spaniards. Nowhere in the 2nd Admendment mentions individual gun ownership. Just Militia which is the military.

How do people get individual gun ownership out of the 2nd Admendment?

How do people get individual gun ownership out of the 2nd Admendment?

From history, and from the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution is the law, not the Constitution itself.

It doesn't say that the militia can keep and bear arms, it says that the reason people may keep and bear arms is because a militia is important to the security of the country. This goes with the argument that the entire purpose of gun ownership is to give one political power.

Look at the student riots in China. They threw rocks at tanks. They cannot rebel against their government effectively because they have no firearms

Meh. Guns should never have been invented. All they were meant to do was kill things. We shoot wolves just so we can shoot moose. Too few moose? Pump a few wolves full of lead. The moose can't get old and die that way, nor can they get sick and die. They can never eat too much and starve to death because they killed off their food. Not according to hunters. Shoot the wolves. Support outdated cowboy politics and gun nuts everywhere. I still think no one should ba able to have guns. Getting killed by a bear in the middle of a forest? What the hell are you doing in the middle of a forest? Bored? What kind of sick bastard needs to kill to be entertained? Don't like someone? Does this mean I can kill you? I wish guns never existed. They make people go crazy with power.

Meh. Guns should never have been invented. All they were meant to do was kill things. We shoot wolves just so we can shoot moose. Too few moose? Pump a few wolves full of lead. The moose can't get old and die that way, nor can they get sick and die. They can never eat too much and starve to death because they killed off their food. Not according to hunters. Shoot the wolves. Support outdated cowboy politics and gun nuts everywhere. I still think no one should ba able to have guns. Getting killed by a bear in the middle of a forest? What the hell are you doing in the middle of a forest? Bored? What kind of sick bastard needs to kill to be entertained? Don't like someone? Does this mean I can kill you? I wish guns never existed. They make people go crazy with power.
*hands you a tinfoil hat and quickly shuffles you out the door*

Why sould there be guns? Why should we shoot eachother? Am I simply going sane in this insane world of ours or am I a dumbass who is retarded for thinking that shooting eachother and everything that moves is not quality entertainment?

Look at the student riots in China. They threw rocks at tanks. They cannot rebel against their government effectively because they have no firearms

Well then get out your Magnum and shoot at Abrams tanks and Apache Helicopters.
Go on, try it!

From history, and from the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution is the law, not the Constitution itself.

LOL.

Care to quote the cases where the Supreme Court has held there is an individual right to own or possess firearms?

In fact, care to find a single federal court decision holding that a gun control law or firearms ban violated the Second Amendment?

Good luck!

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms." (emphasis added).

That does not mean that said arms can be kept locked up in some state drill hall. The weapons are in the hands of individuals.

Gun licenses weren't government policy back then either, at least from what I recall. Also, the Founding Fathers didn't expect developments like revolvers, automatic weapons and all that shit.

Back then the deadliest firearm was a muzzleloader, which was a bitch to reload if something was coming at you after the first shot.

LOL.

Care to quote the cases where the Supreme Court has held there is an individual right to own or possess firearms?

In fact, care to find a single federal court decision holding that a gun control law or firearms ban violated the Second Amendment?

Good luck!
I'll assume that the Supreme Court thinks gun control is ok, due to the phrase "well REGULATED Militia"...because Lord knows they (government) just LOVE to regulate the living hell out of our right to keep and bear arms.

Hell, in my opinion, the only reason they haven't banned guns outright is because there would be a "peasant revolt"...and the lawyer/judge/politician elites can't have us peasants revolting now, can they? :rolleyes:

Yeah. Back then, it was "shoot and hope they shoot someone else while you reload".

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms." (emphasis added).

That does not mean that said arms can be kept locked up in some state drill hall. The weapons are in the hands of individuals.


The "people" refer to the people of the milita.

The "people" refer to the people of the milita.
Ummm... civillian citizens make up the Militia. The Militia IS the people. :headbang:

It says in federal law that there are two levels of militia in the United States: the organized, a.k.a. the National Guard, and the unorganized, consisting of every male between ages 18 and 45. Thus, "The militia."
Then, 'The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' This explains itself if you have an IQ higher than that of a piece of driftwood. And even driftwood can understand that.
While men over forty-five no longer count as part of the militia, the fifth amendment prohibits the government from seizing property without due reason.
You may say that women aren't covered by this. Well, since women qualify as men under the word 'Mankind', they, too, are covered by this.
So yes, in conclusion, the 2nd amendment does, indeed, guarantee individual ownership of a firearm.

I don't see how it can be made much clearer than it is ... "the people" means "the people," which is everyone.

The U.S. Constitution doesn't support individual gun ownership: "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."

A Militia is a group, not an individual. The purpose of the militia was to protect it self from forigen wars. Ie. they were surroned by the French, British, and the Spaniards. Nowhere in the 2nd Admendment mentions individual gun ownership. Just Militia which is the military.

How do people get individual gun ownership out of the 2nd Admendment?

Seeing as they've already delt with your misinterpretation of the grammar;

You've got the definition of militia very very very wrong.

1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.

At the time the constitution was written, #3 occupied spot #1. And even today definition #1 deals with civilians, not the military. Especially considering at the time the civilians provided their own weapons when they joined up.

Why sould there be guns? Why should we shoot eachother? Am I simply going sane in this insane world of ours or am I a dumbass who is retarded for thinking that shooting eachother and everything that moves is not quality entertainment?


You're a dumbass for believing that getting rid of guns would change anything. No guns. Great. We can run around with armies of bowmen, pikemen, knights, crossbowmen, catapults, triremes and make like jolly old Rome and Carthage and Die By The Sword.

But hey, lets just get rid of all weapons anyway... :rolleyes: .

Incidentally, BiLiberal, I'm getting the vibe that you think that everyone owning a gun is a bad idea; could you explain why?

Incidentally, BiLiberal, I'm getting the vibe that you think that everyone owning a gun is a bad idea; could you explain why?
Because...guns are bad, mmmm'kay? Why? Becuase they just are! Guns KILL people!

PS: Does anyone else know any other really bad anti-gun cliches? It's late and my brain is shutting down.

It says in federal law that there are two levels of militia in the United States: the organized, a.k.a. the National Guard, and the unorganized, consisting of every male between ages 18 and 45. Thus, "The militia."
Then, 'The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' This explains itself if you have an IQ higher than that of a piece of driftwood. And even driftwood can understand that.
While men over forty-five no longer count as part of the militia, the fifth amendment prohibits the government from seizing property without due reason.
You may say that women aren't covered by this. Well, since women qualify as men under the word 'Mankind', they, too, are covered by this.
So yes, in conclusion, the 2nd amendment does, indeed, guarantee individual ownership of a firearm.

Nice tap dance. But I'd leave out the flames next time.

How does the "unorganized militia" equal "a well-regulated militia"?

If guns kill people, spoons make Michael Moore fat.

I'll assume that the Supreme Court thinks gun control is ok, due to the phrase "well REGULATED Militia"...because Lord knows they (government) just LOVE to regulate the living hell out of our right to keep and bear arms.

Hell, in my opinion, the only reason they haven't banned guns outright is because there would be a "peasant revolt"...and the lawyer/judge/politician elites can't have us peasants revolting now, can they? :rolleyes:

You would assume wrong.

Although some think the Court's only direct ruling on issue is cryptic (and others think it clearly holds the Second Amendment protects the right of states to militias), the ovewhelming consensus of federal caselaw for the last 70 years (since that decision) has been that there is no individual right to possess and own firearms under the Second Amendment. The Court has declined to rehear the issue, affirmed cases that decided there is no individual right, and appearted to confirm there is no individual right in a footnote.

I'm sure the "elites" lose a lot of sleep worrying about your "peasant revolt." :rolleyes: Where do you live -- Russia in 1917?

You know what the Second Amendment does not expressly protect?

Ammunition.

Just take bullets out of the hands of civilians and let all the gun nuts keep their useless pieces of metal.

How does the "unorganized militia" equal "a well-regulated militia"?

Though unorganized, they could still be well-trained ... In the 18th century, "well-regulated" didn't necessarily mean tied down with bureaucracy and red tape.

The case is very open to interpretation. Personally I agree with the fact that the Second Amendment affirms individual gun ownership because a militia is needed.
It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States; and, in view of this prerogative of the General Government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question [the Second Amendment] out of view prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the General Government.
The government still has a degree over the military authority of the said Organized and Unorganized militias. E.g. should the Canadians invade from the North, the Mexicans from the south, the French from the east, and the Chinese from the west, both militias would be considered men of uniform, and are thus subject to military laws.

The Supreme Court has heard only five cases directly related to the Second Amendment. They are: U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876), Presser v. Illinois (1886), Miller v. Texas (1894), U.S. v. Miller (1939), and Lewis v. U.S. (1980). One the Supreme Court refused to hear, Burton v. Sills (1968), and one concerning the meaning of the Fourth Amendment and "the people," U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990), are also discussed. (Links to the Supreme Court decisions are provided at the end of each section.)

U.S. v. Cruikshank involved members of the Ku Klux Klan depriving black victims of their basic rights such as freedom of assembly and to bear arms....This case is often misunderstood or quoted out of context by claiming Cruikshank held the Second Amendment does not grant a right to keep and bear arms. However, the court also said this about the First Amendment. The court explained that these rights weren't granted or created by the Constitution, they existed prior to the Constitution.
Essentially this case is the core of the 2nd Amendment in my eyes. Regardless of being granted by the Constitution or not, gun ownership, especially for people 18-45, is a natural right governed by natural law.

What causes many people to think that individual gun ownership is not allowed is the case Burton vs. Sills (1985), in which the court almost reversed its position on the second amendment.

Though unorganized, they could still be well-trained ... In the 18th century, "well-regulated" didn't necessarily mean tied down with bureaucracy and red tape.
Co-Sign. It's the reason why Patriots, Brazilian insurgents, Cuban Guerillas (the old kind under Gomez), Filipinos, and VC were so successful in repelling many attacks by stronger military powers (credit to allies of course, but unorganized militias also have a reputation on their own.).

It doesn't say that the militia can keep and bear arms, it says that the reason people may keep and bear arms is because a militia is important to the security of the country. This goes with the argument that the entire purpose of gun ownership is to give one political power.

Look at the student riots in China. They threw rocks at tanks. They cannot rebel against their government effectively because they have no firearms

The issue of using guns to rebel is rendered almost moot by today’s advanced technology. A gun, even an automatic, is little match for the weaponry employed by the military. The air force would bomb the life out of any area that dared to revolt, not to mention the use of tanks, missals, etc.

You know what the Second Amendment does not expressly protect?

Ammunition.

Just take bullets out of the hands of civilians and let all the gun nuts keep their useless pieces of metal.
And how would you go about doing that? It's like that compulsory gun Law. Reiterating the PC, it'd be impssible and extremely impractical to enforce. I can't even imagine how the gov't can legally take bullets away from one group and keep status quo with the other. Some regular civilians aren't gun nuts, but still feel a personal duty to their families, careers, and the second amendment. This means if Big Brother officials raid homes to try to confiscate bullets, they'll get the bullet without the shell, not in their hands, but in their chest, between the eyes, you name it.

The issue of using guns to rebel is rendered almost moot by today’s advanced technology. A gun, even an automatic, is little match for the weaponry employed by the military. The air force would bomb the life out of any area that dared to revolt, not to mention the use of tanks, missals, etc.

There are about 1-2 million people in the US armed forces. There are more like 60 million gun owners in the USA. You do the math. And I bet a lot of servicemen/women would change sides in the event of a meaningful revolt (say, if the government had just banned guns).

Besides, if they'd have to bomb an area flat and kill everyone there in order to keep it in the Union, it just woudln't be worthwhile. They'd basically be driving a knife through their own economic heart.

Give everybody a gun. Those who are incompetent with them will soon be dead.

The issue of using guns to rebel is rendered almost moot by today’s advanced technology. A gun, even an automatic, is little match for the weaponry employed by the military. The air force would bomb the life out of any area that dared to revolt, not to mention the use of tanks, missals, etc.
True, but some degree of firepower is better than none. Sometimes the moderness of military equipment serves little to no advantage. For example, the modern military issue m-16 is a damn good weapon, but is easily matched by the AK-47, which was designed decades ago. The M16 is a good shooter, but the AK-47 round can blow holes through things. Thus, the US Armed forces, even in all their splendor, armor, and weapons, are still vulnerable if shot at by insurgents who have a good location, good view, good communication, and good firing angle. Trust me, if insurgents in Vietnam, Iraq and Somalia can afford RPGs that shoot down Blackhawks, Hueys, and Chinooks, so can American citizens.

I think the pivotal word in the amendment is ‘regulated’. The government retains the right to limit who may own a gun and which type of weapon they can possess. Most of the practical controversy surrounding the second amendment has to do with laws such as gun registration and restricting certain types of firearms and ammunition. While citizens do posses the right to possess guns, this right could be limited to old flintlocks within the wording of the constitution.

True, but some degree of firepower is better than none. Sometimes the moderness of military equipment serves little to no advantage. For example, the modern military issue m-16 is a damn good weapon, but is easily matched by the AK-47, which was designed decades ago. The M16 is a good shooter, but the AK-47 round can blow holes through things. Thus, the US Armed forces, even in all their splendor, armor, and weapons, are still vulnerable if shot at by insurgents who have a good location, good view, good communication, and good firing angle. Trust me, if insurgents in Vietnam, Iraq and Somalia can afford RPGs that shoot down Blackhawks, Hueys, and Chinooks, so can American citizens.

True. I guess I have doubts from a tactical standpoint if a group of civilians could successfully fully rebel. History is replete with examples of people managing to hold out against the US military or regimes backed by them, but are there any examples of them successfully driving off the military post Vietnam.

The case is very open to interpretation. Personally I agree with the fact that the Second Amendment affirms individual gun ownership because a militia is needed.

The government still has a degree over the military authority of the said Organized and Unorganized militias. E.g. should the Canadians invade from the North, the Mexicans from the south, the French from the east, and the Chinese from the west, both militias would be considered men of uniform, and are thus subject to military laws.


Essentially this case is the core of the 2nd Amendment in my eyes. Regardless of being granted by the Constitution or not, gun ownership, especially for people 18-45, is a natural right governed by natural law.

What causes many people to think that individual gun ownership is not allowed is the case Burton vs. Sills (1985), in which the court almost reversed its position on the second amendment.

Ooh, sorry, but guncite's constitutional scholarship is suspect.

1. You'll note that quote from Presser v. Illinois (1886) does not say that there is an individual to own or possess firearms. Nor was that the issue before the Court.

2. Here is the official statement of the American Bar Association (http://www.abanet.org/gunviol/secondamend.html) on the issue (emphasis added):

As part of a comprehensive policy position adopted in 1994, the ABA committed itself to work to better inform the public and lawmakers through a sustained educational campaign regarding the true import of the Second Amendment. Opponents of firearms control legislation have relied upon the Second Amendment's guarantee of "the right to bear arms." The Second Amendment, in its entirety, states:

"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 United States Supreme Court and lower federal courts have consistently interpreted this Amendment only as a prohibition against Federal interference with State militia and not as a guarantee of an individual's right to keep or carry firearms. The argument that the Second Amendment prohibits all State or Federal regulation of citizen's ownership of firearms has no validity whatsoever.

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."

Since today's "well regulated militia" does not use privately owned firearms, courts since Miller have unanimously held that regulation of such guns does not offend the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court has twice reaffirmed its view of the Second Amendment as expressed in Miller. In Burton v. Sills, 394 U.S. 812 (1968), the Court dismissed a gun owner's appeal, for want of a substantial federal question, of a New Jersey Supreme Court holding that the Second Amendment permits regulation of firearms "so long as the regulation does not impair the active, organized militias of the states." Most recently, in Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55 (1980), the Court held that legislative restrictions on the use of firearms do not - for purposes of equal protection analysis - "trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties."

The lower federal courts have uniformly followed the interpretation of the Supreme Court. No legislation regulating the private ownership of firearms has been struck down in our nation's history on Second Amendment grounds.

Yet the perception that the Second Amendment is somehow an obstacle to Congress and state and local legislative bodies fashioning laws to regulate firearms remains a pervasive myth. The gun lobby has conducted extensive and expensive campaigns to foster this misperception and the result has been that the myth of the "absolute bar of the Second Amendment" has real effects on regulatory efforts.

As lawyers, as representatives of the legal profession, and as recognized experts on the meaning of the Constitution and our system of justice, we share a responsibility to the public and lawmakers to "say what the law is." The ABA is committed to bringing about a more reasoned and lawyerly discussion of the meaning and import of the Second Amendment.

3. Former Chief Justice Warren Burger, a life-long hunter and conservative Republican, terms the NRA's Second Amendment rhetoric a "fraud" paid for by the firearms industry:
[O]ne of the frauds -- and I use that term advisedly -- on the American people, has been the campaign to mislead the public about the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment doesn't guarantee the right to have firearms at all . . . . It's shocking to me that the American people have let themselves be conned . . . by the campaigns that are sponsored and financed by the arms industry and the ammunition industry.
Warren Burger, Press Conference Concerning Introduction of the Public Health and Safety Act of 1992, Federal News Service, June 26, 1992, available in LEXIS, News Library, Wires File; see also Tony Mauro, Bill of Rights Has Not Been Scuttled, USA TODAY , Dec. 16, 1991, at 13A. ("[T]he National Rifle Association has done one of the most amazing jobs of misrepresenting and misleading the public.").

4. Arch-conservative and leading proponent of the use of original intent in interpreting the constitution, Judge Robert Bork has stated that the Second Amendment operates "to guarantee the right of states to form militia, not for individuals to bear arms." He believes California's assault-weapons ban is, and indeed "probably" all state gun control measures are, constitutional. Claudia Luther, Bork Says State Gun Laws Constitutional, L.A. TIMES, Mar. 15, 1989, at B5; see also Miriam Bensimhorn, The Advocates: Point and Counterpoint, Laurence Tribe and Robert Bork Debate the Framers' Spacious Terms, LIFE, Fall 1991 (Special Issue), at 96, 98 ("[T]he National Rifle Association is always arguing that the Second Amendment determines the right to bear arms. But I think it really is people's right to bear arms in a militia. The NRA thinks that it protects their right to have Teflon-coated bullets. But that's not the original understanding.").

5. But let's look at some of the cases:

The key Supreme Court case is no Presser, it is
United States v. Miller (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/307/174.html), 307 U.S. 174 (1939):

Defendants were charged with the crime of transporting and possessing an unregistered sawed off shotgun, in violation of the National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C.A. § 1132, et seq. They challenged the indictment and the trial court sustained the demurrer, dismissing the charges. Id. at 177. The government appealed directly to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court reversed the trial court, holding the Second Amendment provided defendants no protection against the indictment. After reviewing the language and history of the Second Amendment, the Court concluded that the “obvious purpose” of the Second Amendment was to “assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness” of the state militia. Id. at 178. Because defendants had offered no evidence that their possession or use of the shotgun had “some reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia,” their conduct was not protected by the Second Amendment. Id.

But let us look at what Miller actually says. Here is a direct quote (with emphasis added) of almost the entire text of Miller:

An indictment in the District Court Western District Arkansas, charged that Jack Miller and Frank Layton 'did unlawfully, knowingly, wilfully, and feloniously transport in interstate commerce from the town of Claremore in the State of Oklahoma to the town of Siloam Springs in the State of Arkansas a certain firearm, to-wit, a double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length

...

The District Court held that section 11 of the Act violates the Second Amendment. It accordingly sustained the demurrer and quashed the indictment.

...

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.

The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power-- 'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.' U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, s 8. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

[I]The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. ...

[Discussion of history of militias in the US and discussion specific state provisions for militias.]

Most if not all of the States have adopted provisions touching the right to keep and bear arms. Differences in the language employed in these have naturally led to somewhat variant conclusions concerning the scope of the right guaranteed. But none of them seem to afford any material support for the challenged ruling of the court below.

...

We are unable to accept the conclusion of the court below and the challenged judgment must be reversed. The cause will be remanded for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.

Miller clearly states the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is "to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness" of state militias and that it "must be interpreted and applied with that end in view." Unless the "possession or use" of a weapon has "some reasonable relationship to to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia," then the 2nd Amendment does not protect the right to keep and bear such a weapon. The Court is crystal clear, moreover, that the “well-regulated militia” which the Second Amendment protects are the militias which the “States are expect to maintain and train.”

But you do not have to take my word for it, you can take the US Supreme Court’s own description of Miller in Lewis v. United States (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/445/55.html), 445 U.S. 55 (1980):

Defendant Lewis was convicted in state court of a felony violation which was never overturned and for which he did not receive a pardon. Subsequently, he was charged under a section of the federal Omnibus Control and Safe Streets Act (then codified at 26 U.S.C. § 1202(a)(1)), which makes it a crime for a convicted felon to knowingly receive, possess or transport a firearm. Lewis challenged the federal conviction, alleging his prior state conviction was constitutionally invalid. The District Court convicted Lewis and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari, and held Lewis could not raise the constitutionality of the prior conviction as a defense to the new crime and the absence of such a defense from the federal law did not render that law violative of any constitutional protections. Id. at 65.

The Court ruled that restrictions contained in the Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibiting felons from owning firearms were constitutional under a rational basis standard. The Court noted (emphasis added):

These legislative restrictions on the use of firearms are neither based upon constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do they trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties. See United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178 (1939) (the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"); United States v. Three Winchester 30-30 Caliber Lever Action Carbines, 504 F.2d 1288, 1290, n. 5 (CA7 1974); United States v. Johnson, 497 F.2d 548 (CA4 1974); Cody v. United States, 460 F.2d 34 (CA8), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1010 (1972) (the latter three cases holding, respectively, that 1202 (a) (1), 922 (g), and 922 (a) (6) do not violate the Second Amendment).

445 U.S. at 65-66 (emphasis added).

Other relevant Supreme Court decisions:

Burton v. Sills (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/394/812.html), 394 U.S. 812 (1968):

In Burton, the Court dismissed a gun owner's appeal (supported by the gun-lobby), for want of a substantial federal question, of a New Jersey Supreme Court's 1968 holding that the state's gun control laws did not violate the Second Amendment, because the Second Amendment permits regulation of firearms "so long as the regulation does not impair the active, organized militias of the states." Adopting the narrow view of the Second Amendment, the New Jersey court found that the state's licensing requirements for manufacturers, wholesalers, and retail dealers, as well as permit and identification card requirements for purchasers, did "not impair the maintenance of the State's active organized militia" and thus were "not at all in violation of either the terms or purposes of the second amendment."

Miller v. Texas (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/153/535.html), 153 U.S. 535 (1894):

Dismissed defendant’s post-conviction challenge to a Texas law prohibiting the carrying of a dangerous weapon on a public street. Defendant sought review by the Supreme Court on several grounds, including that the Texas law denied him the “privileges and immunities of citizenship” because it violated his alleged Second Amendment “right to bear arms.” Id at 538. The Court held the Second Amendment had no application to the challenged state proceedings because the amendment constrains only the federal government and has no “reference whatever to proceedings in state courts.” Id.

Presser v. Illinois (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/116/252.html), 116 U.S. 252 (1886):

Presser was indicted in Illinois state court for violating those sections of the state law making it a misdemeanor for any body of men to associate as a military company of organization, except as part of the organized state militia, unless they obtain a license from the Governor. Presser moved to quash the indictment, alleging that the laws at issue violated numerous constitutional provisions, including the Second Amendment. After the state courts denied his challenge, he sought review in the Supreme Court.

Relying on U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875), the Court rejected Presser’s Second Amendment challenge on the grounds that the Second Amendment constrains only federal action and had no applicability to the state law at issue. The Court also rejected Presser’s claim that the state law denied him the “privilege and immunities” of citizenship because it prevented him from associating with others as an unorganized militia. Presser, 116 U.S. at 267. In addressing this issue, the Court specifically held that “military organization and military drill and parade under arms are subjects especially under the control of the government of every country. They cannot be claimed as a right independent of law. Under our political system they are subject to the regulation and control of the state and federal governments, acting in due regard to their respective prerogatives and powers.” Id. at 267.

LOL.

Care to quote the cases where the Supreme Court has held there is an individual right to own or possess firearms?

In fact, care to find a single federal court decision holding that a gun control law or firearms ban violated the Second Amendment?

Good luck!

How about the Brady Bill.. short memory?

How about the Brady Bill.. short memory?

Nice try. The Brady Bill was held unconstitutional as exceeding the powers of Congress. It was not held to violate the Second Amendment.

Keep plugging ...

Nice try. The Brady Bill was held unconstitutional as exceeding the powers of Congress. It was not held to violate the Second Amendment.

Keep plugging ...

Based on the assumption of the right to own a handgun in the first place.

If there were no right to own a gun, the case would've never been heard, as no issue would be present.

Widespread ownership of guns may be good. Even though gun control laws do not violate the Second Amendment, such laws may be harmful, counter-productive, and/or tyrannical. You certainly can disagree with the courts and hold the opinion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own, possess, or use firearms. But do not pretend that is the state of the law.

Here a handful of cases illustrating further the state of the law re the Second Amendment.

These cases show that the US Courts of Appeals of every circuit in the land have repeatedly rejected an individual rights reading of the Second Amendment and Miller. (The Fifth Circuit has since taken a different position in lenghty dicta in one case. It remains to be seen what will happen with that one opinion, which runs contrary to prior decisions of that circuit.)

This is not one judge or one court. This is scores of judges on 11 different courts over many decades. These judges are from different political backgrounds and different ideologies -- yet they agree on this issue.

Not one single federal decision holding that a gun restriction violates the Second Amendment in the history of the U.S. -- despite the well-funded efforts to appeal every case and fight every law by the gun-lobby and NRA.

United States v. Lippman (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/8th/033275p.pdf), No. 03-3275, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 10432 (8th Cir. May 27, 2004):

Defendant argued that his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm violated the Second Amendment. The court cited its earlier decisions holding that the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms “when it is reasonably related to the maintenance of a well regulated militia.” Id. at *11 (citations omitted). The court found that the defendant had not shown that his firearm possession was reasonably related to a well regulated militia and rejected the Second Amendment claim. Id.

Here are relevant excerpts from the opinion:

Finally, Lippman argues that his conviction should be reversed because § 922(g)(8) is unconstitutional. … Lippman contends that the Second Amendment protects his individual right to bear arms and that the district court erred in its conclusion that § 922(g)(8) does not impermissibly infringe on that right.
…
In a line of cases starting with United States v. Synnes, 438 F.2d 764, 772 (8th Cir. 1971), we have held that the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms when it is reasonably related to the maintenance of a well regulated militia. See, e.g., United States v. Wilson, 315 F.3d 972, 973-74 (8th Cir. 2003); United States v. Lewis, 236 F.3d 948, 950 (8th Cir. 2001); United States v. Smith, 171 F.3d 617, 624 (8th Cir. 1999); United States v. Farrell, 69 F.3d 891, 894 (8th Cir. 1995); United States v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016, 1020 (8th Cir. 1992); United States v. Nelson, 859 F.2d 1318, 1320 (8th Cir. 1988); Cody v. United States, 460 F.2d 34, 37 (8th Cir. 1972). Hutzell is no exception because it cited United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178-79 (1939), in connection with the right to bear arms, and the Supreme Court held in Miller that the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms in "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia." Id. … Since Lippman has not shown that his firearm possession was reasonably related to a well regulated militia, his Second Amendment argument cannot succeed.

United States v. Parker (http://laws.findlaw.com/10th/034119.html), 362 F.3d 1279 (10th Cir. 2004):

Defendant, convicted of carrying a loaded firearm on a military base, appealed on the ground that the conviction violated the Second Amendment. Relying on United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), the court rejected defendant’s claim, holding that in order to prove a Second Amendment violation, one must first show that the alleged possession of the firearm was related to participation in a well-regulated state militia. 362 F.3d at 1282.

Here are excerpts from the opinion:

On appeal, Parker contends his prosecution pursuant to the ACA violates his right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment.
…
Our analysis is guided by the Supreme Court's ruling in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). … Miller has been interpreted by this court and other courts to hold that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual the right to keep and transport a firearm where there is no evidence that possession of that firearm was related to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. See Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55, 65 n.8 (1980) (citing Miller for proposition that "the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia");see also Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052, 1061 (9th Cir. 2003) (referring to Miller's implicit rejection of traditional individual rights position); Love v. Pepersack, 47 F.3d 120, 124 (4th Cir. 1995) ("Since [Miller], the lower federal courts have uniformly held that the Second Amendment preserves a collective, rather than individual, right."); United States v. Toner, 728 F.2d 115, 128 (2d Cir. 1984) (interpreting Miller to stand for rule that, absent reasonable relationship to preservation of well-regulated militia, there is no fundamental right to possess firearm); United States v. Oakes, 564 F.2d 384, 387 (10th Cir. 1977) (analyzing Miller and concluding that "[t]o apply the amendment so as to guarantee appellant's right to keep an unregistered firearm which has not been shown to have any connection to the militia, merely because he is technically a member of the Kansas militia, would be unjustifiable in terms of either logic or policy").

Drawing on Miller, we repeatedly have held that to prevail on a Second Amendment challenge, a party must show that possession of a firearm is in connection with participation in a "well-regulated" "state" "militia." See United States v. Haney, 264 F.3d 1161, 1165 (10th Cir. 2001) (holding "that a federal criminal gun-control law does not violate the Second Amendment unless it impairs the state's ability to maintain a well-regulated militia"); Oakes, 564 F.2d at 387 (stating "purpose of the second amendment . . . was to preserve the effectiveness and assure the continuation of the state militia"). Applying this principle, in Haney we set out a four-part test a party must satisfy to establish a Second Amendment violation: "As a threshold matter, [a party] must show that (1) he is part of a state militia; (2) the militia, and his participation therein, is `well regulated' by the state; (3) [guns of the type at issue] are used by that militia; and (4) his possession of the [the gun at issue] was reasonably connected to his militia service." 264 F.3d at 1165. See also United States v. Bayles, 310 F.3d 1302, 1307 (10th Cir. 2002) (applying Haney to uphold federal law restricting a person subject to a domestic violence protective order from possessing a firearm); United States v. Graham, 305 F.3d 1094, 1106 (10th Cir. 2002) (applying Haney to find law banning sale of explosive devices does not infringe upon person's Second Amendment rights). Unless Parker can satisfy these four criteria, he cannot prevail on his Second Amendment claim. Notably, Parker has presented no evidence tending to show that he meets any of the Haney criteria.
…

[T]he Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits have adopted the most restrictive interpretation (also known as "the collective rights model") of the Second Amendment. Under "the collective rights model," the Second Amendment never applies to individuals but merely recognizes the state's right to arm its militia. See Gillespie v. City of Indianapolis, 185 F.3d 693 (7th Cir. 1999); Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3d 98 (9th Cir. 1996); Love, 47 F.3d 120; United States v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103 (6th Cir. 1976); see also United States v. Price, 328 F.3d 958, 961 (7th Cir. 2003). Similarly, in addition to this court, the First, Third, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits have all adopted a "sophisticated collective rights model." Under this interpretation of the Second Amendment, an individual has a right to bear arms, but only in direct affiliation with a well-organized state-supported militia. See United States v. Wright, 117 F.3d 1265 (11th Cir. 1997); United States v. Rybar, 103 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 1996); United States v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016 (8th Cir. 1992); Cases v. United States, 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942).

… We conclude Parker's prosecution by the United States pursuant to the ACA did not violate the Second Amendment.

United States v. Rybar (http://www.healylaw.com/cases/rybar.htm), 103 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 118 S.Ct. 446 (1997):

Rejected defendant’s Second Amendment and Commerce Clause challenge to his conviction for unlawful transfer or possession of machine guns in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o). Defendant, a federally licensed firearms dealer who obtained the machine guns at issue at a gun show, argued that because of the obvious military utility of a machine gun, the federal law regulating its possession is unconstitutional under the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). The Third Circuit first noted that while the Supreme Court in Miller clearly suggested that the firearm at issue lacked the necessary military character, the Court did not state that “such character alone would be sufficient to secure Second Amendment protection.” Id. at 286. Instead, Miller “assigned no special importance to the character of the weapon itself, but instead demanded a reasonable relationship between its ‘possession or use’ and militia-related activity.” Id. (citations omitted).

Noting that defendant’s possession and use of the machine guns was related to his business activity as a firearms dealer and not to any militia-related activity, the court affirmed the principle established in Miller that, regardless of the military character of a firearm, the Second Amendment is inapplicable when there is no connection between defendant’s possession of a firearm on the one hand and any protected militia-related activity on the other. Finally, the Third Circuit referred defendant to its decisions “on several occasions emphasiz[ing] that the Second Amendment furnishes no absolute right to firearms.” Id. at 286 (citations omitted).

Here are excerpts from the opinion:
As an independent basis for his argument that Section(s) 922(o) is unconstitutional, Rybar relies on the Second Amendment of the Constitution, which provides: "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." U.S. Const. amend. II.

In support, Rybar cites, paradoxically, the Supreme Court decision in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), where the Court upheld the constitutionality of a firearms-registration requirement against a Second Amendment challenge. Rybar draws on that holding, relying on the Miller Court's observation that the sawed-off shotgun in question had not been shown to bear "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." Brief of Appellant at 24-25; Miller, 307 U.S. at 178. Drawing from that language the contra positive implication, Rybar suggests that because the military utility of the machine guns proscribed by Section(s) 922(o) is clear, a result contrary to that reached in Miller is required, and the statute is therefore invalid under the Second Amendment.

Rybar's reliance on Miller is misplaced. The language Rybar cites is taken from the following passage:
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
307 U.S. at 178.

We note first that however clear the Court's suggestion that the firearm before it lacked the necessary military character, it did not state that such character alone would be sufficient to secure Second Amendment protection. In fact, the Miller Court assigned no special importance to the character of the weapon itself, but instead demanded a reasonable relationship between its "possession or use" and militia related activity. Id.; see Cases v. United States, 131 F.2d 916, 922 (1st Cir. 1942) (susceptibility of firearm to military application not determinative), cert. denied, 319 U.S. 770 (1943). Rybar has not demonstrated that his possession of the machine guns had any connection with militia-related activity. Indeed, as noted above, Rybar was a firearms dealer and the transactions in question appear to have been consistent with that business activity.

Nonetheless, Rybar attempts to place himself within the penumbra of membership in the "militia" specified by the Second Amendment by quoting from 10 U.S.C. Section(s) 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 . . . citizens of the United States . . . .
Rybar's invocation of this statute does nothing to establish that his firearm possession bears a reasonable relationship to "the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia," as required in Miller, 307 U.S. at 178. Nor can claimed membership in a hypothetical or "sedentary" militia suffice. See United States v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016, 1020 (8th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 997 (1993); United States v. Oakes, 564 F.2d 384, 387 (10th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 926 (1978); United States v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103, 106 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 948 (1976).

Rybar boldly asserts that "the Miller Court was quite simply wrong in its superficial (and one-sided) analysis of the Second Amendment." Brief of Appellant at 27. As one of the inferior federal courts subject to the Supreme Court's precedents, we have neither the license nor the inclination to engage in such freewheeling presumptuousness. In any event, this court has on several occasions emphasized that the Second Amendment furnishes no absolute right to firearms. See United States v. Graves, 554 F.2d 65, 66 n.2 (3d Cir. 1977); Eckert v. City of Philadelphia, 477 F.2d 610 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 839, 843 (1973). Federal attempts at firearms regulation have also consistently withstood challenge under the Second Amendment. See, e.g., Hale, 978 F.2d at 1020; Warin, 530 F.2d at 108; United States v. Three Winchester 30-30 Caliber Lever Action Carbines, 504 F.2d 1288, 1290 n.5 (7th Cir. 1974); United States v. Johnson, 497 F.2d 548, 550 (4th Cir. 1974); Cases, 131 F.2d at 923. We see no reason why Section(s) 922(o) should be an exception.

Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3d 98 (9th Cir. 1996), cert. denied sub nom, Hickman v. County of Los Angeles, 519 U.S. 912 (1996):

Hickman filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after his application for a concealed carry weapon permit was denied by Los Angeles County Sheriff and City of Los Angeles Chief of Police. Held, based on the “seminal” Supreme Court decision in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), that an individual has no standing to raise a Second Amendment claim because “the Second Amendment guarantees the right of the states to maintain armed militia, [and] the states alone stand in the position to show legal injury when this right is infringed.” Id. at 102. Based on a “plain reading” of the Amendment’s text, the Ninth Circuit also stated that “it is only in the furtherance of state security that ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms’ is finally proclaimed.” Id. (citation omitted). Reiterating that even technical membership or eligibility for enrollment in state militia is insufficient, the Ninth Circuit also emphasized that even if there were individual standing to bring a Second Amendment claim, it would fail because the Second Amendment is not incorporated into the Bill of Rights against action by state and local governments. Id. at 103 n.10.

Here are excerpts from the opinion:

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states: "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." U.S. Const. amend. II. Hickman argues that the Second Amendment requires the states to regulate gun ownership and use in a "reasonable" manner. The question presented at the threshold of Hickman's appeal is whether the Second Amendment confers upon individual citizens standing to enforce the right to keep and bear arms. We follow our sister circuits in holding that the Second Amendment is a right held by the states, and does not protect the possession of a weapon by a private citizen.

….

This case turns on the first constitutional standing element: whether Hickman has shown injury to an interest protected by the Second Amendment. We note at the outset that no individual has ever succeeded in demonstrating such injury in federal court. The seminal authority in this area continues to be United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), in which the Supreme Court upheld a conviction under the National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C. S 1132 (1934), for transporting a sawed-off shotgun in interstate commerce. The Court rejected the appellant's hypothesis that the Second Amendment protected his possession of that weapon. Consulting the text and history of the amendment, the Court found that the right to keep and bear arms is meant solely to protect the right of the states to keep and maintain armed militia. In a famous passage, the Court held that
in the absence of any evidence tending to show that the possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.
307 U.S. at 178 .5 The Court's understanding follows a plain reading of the Amendment's text. The Amendment's second clause declares that the goal is to preserve the security of "a free state;" its first clause establishes the premise that wellregulated militia are necessary to this end. Thus it is only in furtherance of state security that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is finally proclaimed.

Following Miller, "it is clear that the Second Amendment guarantees a collective rather than an individual right." United States v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103, 106 (6th Cir.), cert. denied 96 S.Ct. 3168 (1976); see also Thomas v. Members of City Council of Portland, 730 F.2d 41, 42 (1st Cir. 1984) (same, citing Warin); United States v. Johnson, 497 F.2d 548, 550 (4th Cir. 1974) (cited with approval in Lewis, 445 U.S. at 65 n.8) (same). Because the Second Amendment guarantees the right of the states to maintain armed militia, the states alone stand in the position to show legal injury when this right is infringed.

… Even in states which profess to maintain a citizen militia, an individual may not rely on this fact to manipulate the Constitution's legal injury requirement by arguing that a particular weapon of his admits some military use, or that he himself is a member of the armed citizenry from which the state draws its militia. United States v. Oakes, 564 F.2d 384, 387 (10th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 926 (1978) (technical membership in state militia insufficient to show legal injury under Second Amendment); Warin, 530 F.2d at 106 (same with respect to individual "subject to enrollment" in state militia); United States v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016, 1019 (8th Cir. 1982) (same, citing Warin); United States v. Graves, 554 F.2d 65, 66 n.2 (3rd. Cir. 1977) (en banc) (narrowly construing the Second Amendment "to guarantee the right to bear arms as a member of a militia").

I have over 60 more cases I can post -- which are not exhaustive of the caselaw on this issue. I won't bother. The caselaw is uniform and overwhelming.

Again, you may argue this caselaw is wrong. But don't try to claim the Supreme Court or the federal courts in general have held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own, possess, or use firearms. It just ain't so.

"The 2nd Admendment gives NO RIGHT to individual gun ownership"

Bullshit.

Based on the assumption of the right to own a handgun in the first place.

If there were no right to own a gun, the case would've never been heard, as no issue would be present.

Wrong. The case turned entirely on issues of federalism. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the "right to own a gun."

The case, which invalidated part of the Brady Bill, was Printz v. United States (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/95-1478.html ), 521 U.S. 898 (1997). Feel free to point to the part about the right to own a gun. You won't find it.

Here (http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/835/) is a short summary of the case as well.

Again, you may argue this caselaw is wrong. But don't try to claim the Supreme Court or the federal courts in general have held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own, possess, or use firearms. It just ain't so.

I argue that Lopez, for one, was a de facto ratification of the existing standard. The Miller decision was incoherent on a few counts, and accomplished nothing, aside from assisting bans on sawed-off shotguns; neirhter the spirit or the letter of that law have ever been followed. Previous decisions of the Court have become obsolete, and Miller is one. Those are the only two cases that addressed the issue in any concrete way, whether 60 or whatever number mention it or not.

What is missing in this discussion is a simple lesson in the english language. The second amendment which reads, "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" leaves gramarians the world over with one simple question, did jefferson screw up?

The usage of a comma between 'free State' and 'the right of the people' does from an english standpoint actually create two seperate clauses. The first is that a well regulated militia, that being a militia regulated by the government but not subject to its direct control, has the right to keep and bear arms. The second is the rights of the people to keep and bear arms.

While I realize there is a great deal of debate over the latter, we must keep in mind the time frame in which our venerable constitution was written and realize that the government would not ban firearms as they were a primary means of survival in many portions of the fledgling nation. While I am of the personal opinion that every family does not need to own an H&K MP5, I would like to point out that in most states there are laws against the formation of private militias which are clearly protected under the second amendment and thus it is both the right and responsibility of every citizen to make the choice of whether or not they wish to own a firearm.

As a history teacher, the one thing I would like to throw in here simply for arguments sake is a statement made by one of our founding fathers on this very topic, "A man with a gun is a citizen, a man without a gun is a subject."

Wrong. The case turned entirely on issues of federalism. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the "right to own a gun."

The case, which invalidated part of the Brady Bill, was Printz v. United States (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/95-1478.html ), 521 U.S. 898 (1997). Feel free to point to the part about the right to own a gun. You won't find it.

Here (http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/835/) is a short summary of the case as well.

If you're running a business, an employee cannot make a deal without your consent, but if they procede to do so, and you accept it, then the deal is legal, and you've ratified it. The same concept applies to obsolete Supreme Court decisions and their modern counterparts. Previous cases defining blacks as property haven't been overturned, except by ratification of new standards, for example.

If you're running a business, an employee cannot make a deal without your consent, but if they procede to do so, and you accept it, then the deal is legal, and you've ratified it. The same concept applies to obsolete Supreme Court decisions and their modern counterparts. Previous cases defining blacks as property haven't been overturned, except by ratification of new standards, for example.

That makes almost no sense and has nothing to do with Printz.

Moreoever, to the extent I can work it out, in addition to ignoring the 13th and 14th Amendments in your specific example, your general thesis is simply not how precedent works.

I argue that Lopez, for one, was a de facto ratification of the existing standard. The Miller decision was incoherent on a few counts, and accomplished nothing, aside from assisting bans on sawed-off shotguns; neirhter the spirit or the letter of that law have ever been followed. Previous decisions of the Court have become obsolete, and Miller is one. Those are the only two cases that addressed the issue in any concrete way, whether 60 or whatever number mention it or not.

Supreme Court decisions do not simply become "obsolete." Particularly not when they are reaffirmed (see Lewis) and where they are expressly applied by the federal courts on a regular basis.

I think the Supreme Court in Miller was rather clear (as they were in Lewis).

As for your statement that "[neither] the spirit or the letter of that law have ever been followed," you might check the US Court of Appeals cases I cited above. Miller is regularly applied by the federal Courts. And it has almost unanimously been interpreted as holding there is no individual right to own, possess, or use firearms -- in scores of cases from 1939 to the present.

As with Printz, United States v. Lopez (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/u10287.html ), 514 US 549 (1995), has nothing to do with the Second Amendment. I dare you to show where it speaks to the issue.

That makes almost no sense and has nothing to do with Printz.

Moreoever, to the extent I can work it out, in addition to ignoring the 13th and 14th Amendments in your specific example, your general thesis is simply not how precedent works.

Standards evolve, and rarely receive full or any attention in Court opinion. The 13th and 14th Amendments, in my example, are the obvious modifiers, but rarely do changing circumstances engender explicit redefinition. If a law is recognized by the Court that is in clear opposition to a prior decision, for example, and upheld, then the previous opinion is obsolete, whether the opinion explicitly states it or not.

Standards evolve, and rarely receive full or any attention in Court opinion. The 13th and 14th Amendments, in my example, are the obvious modifiers, but rarely do changing circumstances engender explicit redefinition. If a law is recognized by the Court that is in clear opposition to a prior decision, for example, and upheld, then the previous opinion is obsolete, whether the opinion explicitly states it or not.

Errrr, sort of ... you are close enough. But that is not relevant here.

I don't understand how this simple phrase can be so misinterpreted "A well regulated (read equiped) Militia (read every able bodied man), being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

The "people" refer to the people of the milita.

To me, in this case the "people" refers not to the people of the militia or of the country, but to the general population as a whole, as in the people or population of a country.
The US constitution was drafted in a time where there was no real standing army of any number, therefore the general population WAS the army as in citizen soldiers.
Now there is a standing army of considerable number, so this amendment really has no meaning in the context in which it was written. IT WAS MEANT TO BE USED FOR THE BENEFIT OF A CITIZEN'S MILITIA NOT FOR GUN OWNERSHIP AS A WHOLE! I think if the founding fathers of the USA saw how the amendment was being used today, it would never have been drawn up or they would have been clearer on what they meant. To them it was clear as day!!!!!
Honestly, I don't see the reason why someone requires to own an automatic weapon and sees it as their fundemental right!!!!!
All weapons should be registered and all characteristic markings (rifling, pin marks, etc) should be kept by the government for ID of a bullet that has been used in a criminal activity.

A quick question, to those of you Americans who advocate gun ownership. Do you at least admit that, if a case can be made to argue that individual gun ownsership is both Constitutional and necessary (a big if!), then that necessity springs only from the fact that your country messed the situation up terribly by allowing everyone to have guns in the first place?

Over here in Europe, people haven't got guns. We've never needed them. It's a non-issue. As a result, we don't need guns to protect ourselves from other people with guns. Our murder rate is staggeringly lower overall than in the US, and murder by guns is virtually non-existent (compare to the horrendous number of gun accidents, suicides and murders in the US!).

Is there anyone seriously arguing that it was a good thing in the first place for you all to have guns? Most gun-ownership advocates seem to argue that the only reason they need a gun is because everyone else in the US has got one.

(Another reason why I'm glad I'm not American, btw. At least over here I can feel safe precisely because there aren't any guns).

A quick question, to those of you Americans who advocate gun ownership. Do you at least admit that, if a case can be made to argue that individual gun ownsership is both Constitutional and necessary (a big if!), then that necessity springs only from the fact that your country messed the situation up terribly by allowing everyone to have guns in the first place?

Guns aren't used due to some mistake. Guns are used to survive. In American history, this meant survival for those with no farming knowledge, who could live on deer or buffalo or other game, and could defend their property and families from marauders, indians, or any other thing, including bears and other animals. I don't see any mistake. America wouldn't exist if not for Americans who could shoot, in the beginning, in 1812, in 1863, etc.

Hey, Americans were the illegal immigrants back then. Of course, the settlers didn't like the indians. What did the settlers do? Either forced the Indians into the worst land available or pumped them full of lead. I guess indian women and children were also threats as they too ate lead. Guns are designed to kill things. Anyone denying this is denying common sense. What else can they do that a large blunt object can't do?

The U.S. Constitution doesn't support individual gun ownership: "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."

A Militia is a group, not an individual. The purpose of the militia was to protect it self from forigen wars. Ie. they were surroned by the French, British, and the Spaniards. Nowhere in the 2nd Admendment mentions individual gun ownership. Just Militia which is the military.

How do people get individual gun ownership out of the 2nd Admendment?

I haven't read most of this thread, so I apologize if this has already been convered.

Think about it. The 2nd Amendment is right there in the Bill of Rights. The Rights are endowed upon the people of the United States. It's not "The states have a right to freedom of the press," or "The states have a right to fair and speedy trial." The first 10 Amendments to the Constitution all deal with the rights of the people. It is illogical to assume that the writers of the Bill of Rights wrote the First Amendment, and then said "Okay, let's stop with the people and give the States some rights," and once they had finished the Second Amendment, went back to outling the people's rights for eight more amendments.

Secondly, the idea of a militia. "Militia," as defined by Webster's New World Dictionary, is an "army composed of citizens rather than professional soldiers." These citizens have to get guns in order to fight. In America, almost everyone had a gun, either for hunting, fighting the British, the Indians, or whatever. Which would be a more feasible for a new nation? Let the people keep their guns, and have them form militias to fight enemies, or try to take the guns away and have second Revolution?

Oh, and the answer is right in front of you: "[...]the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

And let's not forget old Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States."

From WHETHER THE SECOND AMENDMENT SECURES AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT (http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm), August 24, 2004:

Originally Posted by US Department of Justice
Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the Second Amendment secures an individual right to keep and to bear arms. Current case law leaves open and unsettled the question of whose right is secured by the Amendment. Although we do not address the scope of the right, our examination of the original meaning of the Amendment provides extensive reasons to conclude that the Second Amendment secures an individual right, and no persuasive basis for either the collective-right or quasi-collective-right views. The text of the Amendment's operative clause, setting out a "right of the people to keep and bear Arms," is clear and is reinforced by the Constitution's structure. The Amendment's prefatory clause, properly understood, is fully consistent with this interpretation. The broader history of the Anglo-American right of individuals to have and use arms, from England's Revolution of 1688-1689 to the ratification of the Second Amendment a hundred years later, leads to the same conclusion. Finally, the first hundred years of interpretations of the Amendment, and especially the commentaries and case law in the pre-Civil War period closest to the Amendment's ratification, confirm what the text and history of the Second Amendment require.

LOL.

Care to quote the cases where the Supreme Court has held there is an individual right to own or possess firearms?

In fact, care to find a single federal court decision holding that a gun control law or firearms ban violated the Second Amendment?

Good luck!
You are entirely correct. Not. The only real cases to come up that truly decided the matter have all been in lower courts. The only supreme court case is Miller and at best from the gun control side of the argument it can only be said that it didn't explicitly decide between states' rights and individual rights. There have been several lower court cases which have ignored this fact and twisted Miller for their own ends.

Over here in Europe, people haven't got guns. We've never needed them. It's a non-issue.

To believe this we would have to ignore every single fucking war that has ocurred on the european continent. What is the only country that has managed to keep it's neutrality throughout all the major wars? That's right, Switzerland. And what country arms it's citizens to the teeth? That's right, Switzerland.

http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000311----000-.html
§ 311. Militia: composition and classes

Release date: 2004-03-18

(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.
(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.

Because all males 17-45 are automatically part of the militia, they are afforded the right to own whatever weapon they wish to own.

Seperate from that, the Supreme Court has decided that the 2nd amendment allows all citizens to own weapons/firearms.

Hey BiLiberal, do you even know why the 2nd Amendment was created?

We had just come out of a war for independence. Back then the militia was composed of private citizens who were called together in times of war. It was those citizens who owned and brought their personal firearms into service to fight the British. The right of the people to bear arms is what helped America throw off the tyranny of British rule.

And besides the outside threat, the Founders realized that a threat could emerge from within - should the government ever grow despotic, there would be a better chance for a revolution to overthrow it if the populace is armed. It was the greatest empires and dictatorships which subjugated the people by disarmament.

And nobody better give me any of that 'but the government and military possess higher calibre weapons far greater in destruction than a regular firearm' BS - in America there are around 80 million legal gun owners, compared to only 1 million men and women in military. Strength in numbers, my friend.

"Oppressors can tyrannize only when they achieve a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace"
-James Madison

Not a Gun case but in this case, the supreme court says the second admendment gaurantees an Individual right to keep and bear arms

The U. S. Supreme Court has recently recognized the Second Amendment as an important individual right. Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992); United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1991).

also you have to do a study of language usage in the 18th century to find out that "regulated" back then is used like "controlled" today and that the "militia" back them was required to provide its own weapons and keep them at home

The issue of using guns to rebel is rendered almost moot by today’s advanced technology. A gun, even an automatic, is little match for the weaponry employed by the military. The air force would bomb the life out of any area that dared to revolt, not to mention the use of tanks, missals, etc.

Tell that to the terrorist who attack with guns.

Look, if a tank doesn't see me, I can destroy it with a pistol. The (God help me with this spelling) Mujahadin would have men jump on the back of tanks at night and wait for the hatches to open. When they did, everyone inside would be promply shot.

From WHETHER THE SECOND AMENDMENT SECURES AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT (http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm), August 24, 2004:

That report provides one of the most persuasive and well-documented arguments that the Second Amendment secures an individual right.

I highly recommend it. Readers should recognize, however, that it is not the law. It is an argument -- a good argument, but one I find flawed -- as to what the law should be.

futurama quote

We need to go somewhere where law doesnt matter and the amendment means nothing, - the supreme court

I'm curious.
Why is it desirable to have a well armed public? What is the porpose/need? Has it ever been usefull?

I ask only because I don't know and cannot relate. It's not meant as a provocation.

You are entirely correct. Not. The only real cases to come up that truly decided the matter have all been in lower courts. The only supreme court case is Miller and at best from the gun control side of the argument it can only be said that it didn't explicitly decide between states' rights and individual rights. There have been several lower court cases which have ignored this fact and twisted Miller for their own ends.

You and I have danced this dance before, but you actually concede the point I was actually making in the post you quote. Pepe Dominguez and others have argued the Supreme Court has held there is a individual right under the Second Amendment. You and I can at least agree that is not true.

And you didn't answer either question I posted:

I take it that you cannot quote any case where the Supreme Court has held there is an individual right to own or possess firearms.

I also take it that you cannot find a single federal court decision holding that a gun control law or firearms ban violated the Second Amendment.

You are free to disagree with the Supreme Court's own interpretation of Miller in Lewis.

You like to ignore that we have an entire federal judiciary. In the absence of a Supreme Court decision to the contrary, a US Court of Appeals decision is the law of the land within its jurisdiction. Here, 10 of the 11 US Courts of Appeals have uniformly held for 70 years that (a) there is no individual right to own or possess firearms protected by the Second Amendment and (b) Miller expressly held (a). One Circuit has ruled with the rest previously, but recently waffled. The Supreme Court has been repeatedly asked to overrule this rulings of the Courts of Appeal. It has refused. To the contrary, its actions in other cases like Burton and its statement in Lewis indicate its agreement.

Again, to say the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms is one thing. It is a defensible position.

But, again, to suggest, as has been done here, that the Supreme Court has held there is an individual right to own, possess, or use firearms protected by the Second Amendment is sheer nonsense.

EDIT: BTW, you might note I have been far more respectful of the individual-rights view in this thread and this post than I have in the past. That is, in part, due to arguments with you and others. It is a supportable view.

Seperate from that, the Supreme Court has decided that the 2nd amendment allows all citizens to own weapons/firearms.

Bullshit.

I'll repeat the challenges I made before:


LOL.

Care to quote the cases where the Supreme Court has held there is an individual right to own or possess firearms?

In fact, care to find a single federal court decision holding that a gun control law or firearms ban violated the Second Amendment?

Good luck!

http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000311----000-.html
§ 311. Militia: composition and classes

Release date: 2004-03-18

(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.
(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.

Because all males 17-45 are automatically part of the militia, they are afforded the right to own whatever weapon they wish to own.

Care to explain how the "unorganized militia" equals a "well-regulated militia"?

Care to explain how a federal statute defines terms used in the Constitution? If Congress passes a law saying "speech" means only sign language, does that change the scope of the First Amendment?

Not a Gun case but in this case, the supreme court says the second admendment gaurantees an Individual right to keep and bear arms

The U. S. Supreme Court has recently recognized the Second Amendment as an important individual right. Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992); United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1991).

also you have to do a study of language usage in the 18th century to find out that "regulated" back then is used like "controlled" today and that the "militia" back them was required to provide its own weapons and keep them at home

Um. Neither case says any such thing.

Here are links -- please quote where they say that:
Planned Parenthood v. Casey (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/505/833.html ), 505 US 833 (1992)
United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/494/259.html ), 494 US 259 (1990)

Planned Parenthood makes no reference to the Second Amendment whatsoever that I can find.

Verdugo-Urquidez makes a passing reference that in no way says the Second Amendment is an important individual right.

The U.S. Constitution doesn't support individual gun ownership: "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."

A Militia is a group, not an individual. The purpose of the militia was to protect it self from forigen wars. Ie. they were surroned by the French, British, and the Spaniards. Nowhere in the 2nd Admendment mentions individual gun ownership. Just Militia which is the military.

How do people get individual gun ownership out of the 2nd Admendment?

The milita is not the military.

By United States Code, the militia is defined as:

"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."

And is composed of two classes:

Organized - Members of the National Guard and Naval Militia.
Unorganized - Any other member of the "militia" (as outlined above) who are not members of the National Guard or Naval Militia.

"A well regulated militia"... Regulated by law (Law outlines the militia, in regulation, under Title 10, Subtitle A, Part 1, Chapter 13, Section 311)

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms"... Those members of the Militia as outlined before. (The National Guard, Naval Militia, and all males, who either are, or have the intention to become citizens, between the ages of 17 and 45).

To further note, Virginia composes its own Constitutional Bill of Rights...

" That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

And indeed, defines its own militia (Title 44):

"The militia of the Commonwealth of Virginia shall consist of all able-bodied citizens of this Commonwealth and all other able-bodied persons resident in this Commonwealth who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, who are at least sixteen years of age and, except as hereinafter provided, not more than fifty-five years of age. The militia shall be divided into four classes, the National Guard, which includes the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard, the Virginia State Defense Force, the naval militia, and the unorganized militia."

How do people get individual gun ownership out of the 2nd Admendment?


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.

Yes, yes, I know. Countless people wrote about it, many of them more intelligent then I am. But I just wanted to set a few things straight.

So, what is it all about? Is that ‘right’ thing limited to the National Guard? Or does it include Mr. Jones the grocery salesman?

Let’s look at the wording, first. What does it say?

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.

This is obviously divide into two logical parts.

The first part is “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state”. The second is “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

The two clauses are related logically in a structure common to 18th and 19th century document. In legal jargon, they are a ‘justificatory’ and an operative ‘clause’. So, in other words, the first half provides a reason to have the second. That is, ‘The right of the people to keep and bear arms [henceforth RKBA] shall not be infringed.’ BECAUSE ‘a well regulated militia’ is ‘necessary to the security of the free state’.

That means that that while the government is not allowed to infringe the RKBA, the RKBA is not limited to members of the militia - because the justification clause does not limit the operative clause.

And Professor Eugene Volokh of the UCLA Law School thinks that way, too. (http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~volokh/common.htm)

Consider that as a simple analogue:

"A well-educated electorate being necessary to the preservation of a free society, the right of the people to read and compose books shall not be infringed."

What does it mean? It means you are going to stop infringing on the right to read and write, hoping that, as a result, some of them will be smart enough to vote for Bush. To the same tune, the Second Amednent means the government is going to stop infringing on your RKBA, hoping that, as a result, it will be possible to create a ‘well-regulated militia’.

It is perfectly clear, from the writing of the Founding Fathers that they intended ordinary people to be able to exercise the right to bear arms:

One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them.

Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.

[The Constitution preserves] [/I] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. [/I]

James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46.

The whole of that Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals...[I]t establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of.

Albert Gallatin to Alexander Addison, Oct 7, 1789, MS. in N.Y. Hist. Soc.-A.G. Paper

In 1982, the United States Senate started a sub-committee on the subject. They reached the same conclusion.

Bibliography


The CommonPlace Second Amenment (http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~volokh/common.htm) by Eugene Volokh
The Right to Keep and Bear Arms Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the committee on the Judiciary United States Senate, 97th Congress, Second Session February, 1982 (http://www.accuratepress.net/report.html)
The Right to Arms: Does the Constitution or the Predilection of Judges Reign? Robert Dowlut, Oklahoma Law Review (http://www.guncite.com/journals/dowjud.html)




Recommended Reading
Halbrook, Stephen P., That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right, University of New Mexico Press, 1984.


Good enough, Bi-Liberal?

Personally, I don't think y'all should be asking "Does the U.S. Constitution allow me to bear arms," but rather, "Should I be allowed to bear arms?"

a gun is a tool its not different than any other tool its only as bad as the person using it. People dont have the morals they used to have and people are corrupt. the first thing a government does to become a dictatorship is remove guns from the people. Guns are for defense from evil people and government. Criminals get their guns illegaly and the government gets there guns no matter what. So if guns are band then criminals and government will still have them then government will use the fact that criminals have the to invade your privacty against your rights. thus creating a dictatorship. theres gun control in a nut shell

<<Oppressors can tyrannize only when they achieve a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace>>

Or an armed populace that thinks the tyrants are in the right. Hitler had gun control but without it he'd still have done all he did.

I'd like to put a different spin on this debate...

Isn't it the goal of all of these anti-gunners to send the authorities into our homes when we don't comply with their "laws"???

Won't it be HYPOCRITICAL of them to send ARMED MEN to DISARM MEN?

Listen Antigunners, seriously, we are ready to die for the cause. If we live through your Hitlerian "Final Solution" to the gun debate, we are going to be pretty pissed-off and mourning our dead and looking for revenge against those who caused the whole thing. Which will be you Antigunners, of course.

Force the issue, USE FORCE to get your way with me, and I will stop you. What's more, I will have the MEANS to stop you. And so will millions of other Americans just like me.

Which is sort of our whole point in this issue anyway!

To most gunowners, behind the scenes, the "Gun Debate" is a great big sick joke. It cannot be won by the enemy (antigunners). At least, it cannot be won if they are to remain ideologically-pure.

You cannot disarm me with your "peace" and "safety" arguments and you cannot lawfully kill me for owning a hunk of metal. Do you think putting your ideals into a law-book will justify my death?

We are free because we can and will fight oppression (in this case, that is YOU ANTIGUNNERS). Even in death, we will have defied you and your way of thinking, which is good enough for me. But I'm no martyr, I remember the words of a famous general:

"The point of a war isn't to die for your country, it's to make the other poor bastard die for his!"

Don't make this a war; you cannot win. Accept that what I have in my house, my car or my holster is NONE OF YOUR DAMN BUSINESS and move on with your life.

If somone is killed without just cause by me (or my guns), then I will have committed a crime, a felony, and you can send armed men to get me. Until then, I am innocent. Gunowners are innocent until they do something wrong. Lay off already. We aren't your enemies; but you would make yourselves enemies to us.

In a fight you can never win.

*shakes head and leaves in utter disgust*

Personally, I don't think y'all should be asking "Does the U.S. Constitution allow me to bear arms," but rather, "Should I be allowed to bear arms?"

If you do not want a gun, you do not have to get one, In the USA, you have that choice (unless you are a felon)

The U.S. Constitution doesn't support individual gun ownership: "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."

A Militia is a group, not an individual. The purpose of the militia was to protect it self from forigen wars. Ie. they were surroned by the French, British, and the Spaniards. Nowhere in the 2nd Admendment mentions individual gun ownership. Just Militia which is the military.

How do people get individual gun ownership out of the 2nd Admendment?

Actually the militia and military are two completely different, for one the military is there, militias are illegal.

Militias are not illegal, Ohio has one and it trains every year, and I am not talking the ohio national guard

now there are "militias" that are really just groups of thugs with an agenda hiding behind the Militia label to seem legal

The U.S. Constitution doesn't support individual gun ownership: "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."

Thanks for playing.

How do people get individual gun ownership out of the 2nd Admendment?

Read the bolded statement.

The "people" refer to the people of the milita.

I guess you didn't read your whole statement.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms"

Notice that its after the part about militias?

In every other section of the bill of rights "people" is taken as all members of the general populace. So it stands to reason that the "people" in the second amendment is the same "people" in fourth amendment or the first. Unless you believe the freedoms of speech, religion and press only refer to the militia.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II
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.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I'm curious.
Why is it desirable to have a well armed public? What is the porpose/need? Has it ever been usefull?

A short course on the well-armed populace in American history.

The idea of a well-armed populace is a hallmark of republican theory (note the small 'r', I'm talking political theory, not the party associated with elephants). This theory can be traced back to ancient Greece (Plato came down on both sides of the question), through Rome, and in/among various lands and peoples after that. Republican theory made a resurgance in the 16th century, with the writings of Machievelli and others, was taken up by English/British thinkers and from there spread to America and France among other places.

Republican theory, especially in early America, was built on four big pillars. First, freedom depends on the independence of the voting populace (landed/propertied white males at the time). Second, yeoman farmers make more virtuous (and therefor better) citizens than any other class. Third, standing armies are dangerous to liberty. Fourth, that the free, independent, and virtuous citizens, armed and banded together in a militia, are the best defense of liberty.

The first two of those pillars don't affect the question, but the last two strike at the heart of the matter. Looking back, it is easy to see why standing armies would be thought dangerous at the time. They are under the control of the crown/government, not directly of the people. This, and a general distrust of power concentrated in hands far from home, combined to make the people more likely to trust locally controlled militia units to provide their security—against outside forces yes, but even more against tyranny at home.

The question of the effectiveness of the militia is a bit more of a mixed bag. Despite popular conceptions, it was not the virtuous, independent American militias that won the Revolution. It was Washington's undersized professional force, French aid at the end of the war, and the international realities of the day that made the victory possible. However, the militias did show themselves effective in guerrilla operations like most of the Indian wars, and there were internal uprisings (Shay's rebellion, Whiskey rebellion) that were put down with the militias.

I can try to find documents on-line or provide print citations for this information if you want. I'll also check back if y'all have questions or want clarification on any point.

Ulfhedinn
PhD student, Early American History
The Ohio State University

A well-armed public is very useful. In places where there are plenty of guns and reasonable regulations on them, like Switzerland and Wyoming, there is a really low murder rate. In places where there are overbearing gun laws, like in California and Washington, D.C., there is a really high murder rate. In places where there are lots of guns and no regulations, like in Sub-Saharan Africa, there is lots of violence.

What am I getting at? A well-regulated, well-armed public can come in handy when dealing with things like border control, where it can be more effective than traditional border security with less cost to the taxpayers. Plus, with groups like the Hmong and Montagnards, populaces with weaponry can be used very effectively in combat.

What is the only country that has managed to keep it's neutrality throughout all the major wars? That's right, Switzerland. And what country arms it's citizens to the teeth? That's right, Switzerland.

If you genuinely believe that Switzerland's continued neutrality has anything to do with people there having guns, then you know very little about Switzerland.

Well I dont live in the 'states but I might as well jump in on their behalf as I am very libertarian...

One can take the argument "It only applies to a government regulated militia" and smash it with common sense. The "Founding Fathers" weren't after a "government regulated militia" because the entire point from day one was to keep "government regulated militias", i.e. the military/police, from having a monopoly on firepower. Figure it out, its written right there, unless it was a very interesting typo. :rolleyes:

Out of curiosity, why was this thread started? Why some so pissed that other people have guns? We aren't hurting you. Live your own lives.

Gungrabbers, piss off and leave enthusiasts, collectors, shooters, hunters, CCWers and weekend plinkers alone. Stop watching Mike Moore films, and understand that a statistic you saw on a mockumentary does not give you the right to invade our privacy and tell us how we should run our lives with no cause. (BIG HINT: The actions of FEW others are not causes!)

PS: The U.S. Constitution is CRYSTAL CLEAR.

In the first ten amendments and the rest of the origional constitution the words "the people" refer to an individual right.

The most recent Supreme Court ruling on the subject United States v. Miller (1939) upholds the individual right to military weaponry. The sawed off shotgun in the case was not permitted, because the court found that it failed to have modern military usage.
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

It also explains the meaning of the word "militia" The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

United States v. Miller text:
Cornell Law Site (http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/search/display.html?terms=Miller&url=/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0307_0174_ZO.html)

A condensed version:
Answers.com summery (http://www.answers.com/topic/united-states-v-miller)

That is what the Supreme Court has said about the subject. I will not go into quesitons of right or wrong, or practacality.

Well I dont live in the 'states but I might as well jump in on their behalf as I am very libertarian...

One can take the argument "It only applies to a government regulated militia" and smash it with common sense. The "Founding Fathers" weren't after a "government regulated militia" because the entire point from day one was to keep "government regulated militias", i.e. the military/police, from having a monopoly on firepower. Figure it out, its written right there, unless it was a very interesting typo. :rolleyes:

Out of curiosity, why was this thread started? Why some so pissed that other people have guns? We aren't hurting you. Live your own lives.

Gungrabbers, piss off and leave enthusiasts, collectors, shooters, hunters, CCWers and weekend plinkers alone. Stop watching Mike Moore films, and understand that a statistic you saw on a mockumentary does not give you the right to invade our privacy and tell us how we should run our lives with no cause. (BIG HINT: The actions of FEW others are not causes!)

PS: The U.S. Constitution is CRYSTAL CLEAR.

Yeah, the actions of a few do not reflect on the actions of the many.

If you genuinely believe that Switzerland's continued neutrality has anything to do with people there having guns, then you know very little about Switzerland.

Well since every male of 18 on up has a gun...its a reasonable assertion to make. Not to mention its geography. LOL

If you genuinely believe that Switzerland's continued neutrality has anything to do with people there having guns, then you know very little about Switzerland.
My point is not that because they give their citizens they stay neutral. My point is that no one has dared to violate their declarations of neutrality because of the combination of armed populace and the geography of the area.

The U.S. Constitution doesn't support individual gun ownership: "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."

A Militia is a group, not an individual. The purpose of the militia was to protect it self from forigen wars. Ie. they were surroned by the French, British, and the Spaniards. Nowhere in the 2nd Admendment mentions individual gun ownership. Just Militia which is the military.

How do people get individual gun ownership out of the 2nd Admendment?

Find a dictionary. Look up the word "militia". It is ANY male 18 years and over qualifies as a member of a militia.

Second, Madison the father of the Constitution specifically stated "That an armed public being necessary for a free state." Stop arguing this on the net and research the founders' position on arms and private citizens.

You will NOT be infringing on my rights. And you will NOT be considered a worthy American if you don't defend our rights from the government you damned worm.

It doesn't forbid individual gun rights, as it isn't really addressing them.

Individual state constitutions, however, do, in some cases, address them directly, granting the right to bear arms as an individual right.

It hardly matters at this point. Gun control crumbling across the US, except in dense urban Democratic strongholds. In 35 states, it is political suicide to advocate for strong gun control.

At the end of the day it's all moot.

The issue then is how to adjust the gun-culture so that fewer gun crimes are committed in the United States.

Canada has a high percentage of gun ownership and relatively few gun crimes. Perhaps this is more a question of cultural development and less about constitutional rights to bear arms.

I'd suggest that the Founding Fathers didn't intend for that right to extend to street gangs intent on robbing little old ladies of their pension cheques.

At the end of the day it's all moot.

The issue then is how to adjust the gun-culture so that fewer gun crimes are committed in the United States.

Canada has a high percentage of gun ownership and relatively few gun crimes. Perhaps this is more a question of cultural development and less about constitutional rights to bear arms.

I'd suggest that the Founding Fathers didn't intend for that right to extend to street gangs intent on robbing little old ladies of their pension cheques.

Maybe you should become more familiar with the current rates of crime and gun violence.

There were around 400,000 violent crimes last year. These are defined as Part I felonies - murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault.

Of these, 76 percent were committed without a firearm or any other weapon (no knives, no clubs, no whips and chains).

There were, last year, a bit over 10,000 firearms murders last year. This is substantially lower than it was in 1995, when we had a peak nearly three times as high.

Between 1995 and 2005, when the number of firearm deaths was dropping, gun ownership increased from 200 million to 300 million guns. The assault weapons ban expired. 35 states passed laws making it easier to carry concealed weapons.

And yet our firearms murder rate plummeted over that period.

Try again.

Maybe you should become more familiar with the current rates of crime and gun violence.

There were around 400,000 violent crimes last year. These are defined as Part I felonies - murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault.

Of these, 76 percent were committed without a firearm or any other weapon (no knives, no clubs, no whips and chains).

There were, last year, a bit over 10,000 firearms murders last year. This is substantially lower than it was in 1995, when we had a peak nearly three times as high.

Between 1995 and 2005, when the number of firearm deaths was dropping, gun ownership increased from 200 million to 300 million guns. The assault weapons ban expired. 35 states passed laws making it easier to carry concealed weapons.

And yet our firearms murder rate plummeted over that period.

Try again.

I made no comment as to the trend - I simply stated that there is a culture of crime beyond the gun culture. That culture exists regardless of the current trend.

To simplify - the ration of gun ownership to gun crime in the USA is higher than in other nations.

You seem to also have made the incorrect assumption that I'm against gun ownership - I am not. I do own several firearms.

If we could live in a non-violent society, I would choose to do so. If the police and military would give up thier weapons, I would do the same. Unarmed populations have always been subject to the brutality of thier governments. Would the NAZIs have had such an easy time exterminating six million Jews if they had been armed? Would Stalin have dared to purge the USSR of some 30 million if they had the means to resist? We don't know. Something tells me that they would not have. History is replete with examples that power corrupts, and governments look out for thier interests, not thier peoples interests.

Some people argue that resistance without high tech weapons does not work. Look at Iraq. I would say that it works very well.

Does the First Amendment apply only to quill pens and hand-cranked presses? No, it does not. Private citizens should be free to choose to arm themselves against tyrrany. It is why America exists, because people decided to say no more to a government that abused it's powers and treated certain citizens (colonials) like second-rate human beings.

I will not try to negotiate with a 250lb man who breaks into my home in the dead of night. I will not try to protect myself and my wife from rape or murder with a baseball bat. I will engage the criminal with the most effective weapon I have, my firearms.

To you people want me to surrender my weapons, which serve as my safety from harm and my ability to resist tyrrany, I say fuck you. You can come take them from my dead hands. Because if the day comes when I must rise against my government gone tyrranical, then that is the day I no longer wish to live.

The U.S. Constitution doesn't support individual gun ownership: "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."

A Militia is a group, not an individual. The purpose of the militia was to protect it self from forigen wars. Ie. they were surroned by the French, British, and the Spaniards. Nowhere in the 2nd Admendment mentions individual gun ownership. Just Militia which is the military.

How do people get individual gun ownership out of the 2nd Admendment?


While this is all true, those lovely supreme court judges are the ones allowed to interpret the meaning of the constitution with out changing the original meaning of the document(I can't remember which amendment catered for this). Individual ownership ain't going to change anytimes soon, its too much a part of American culture. I completely disagree with it, given the horrific instances of violence in the US compared with other countires. But this so called 'right' hasn't been instilled in the phyci(i never said i could spell) of other countries for literally generations.

Abolish the entire constitution I say, and live freeeeeeeee

At the time of the Constitutions writing, all militiamen had to supply their own weapons and gear. In order to ensure the readiness of the militias, the 2nd amendment allowed citizens to own weapons in case a citizen militia was ever needed again (and militias were required many times like the whiskey rebellion).
A militia has to be armed, so the constitution allows citizens to be armed.

And the meaning of "people" in the 2nd amendment is the same as the definition of "people" in any other amendment.