Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Framers' intent still hotly debated
ARIZONA DAILY STAR ^ | 06.04.2006 | Ann Brown

Posted on 06/05/2006 12:35:33 PM PDT by neverdem

Guns are the center of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

While the topic is clear, the amendment is fraught with ambiguity and has been subject to conflicting interpretations and often acrimonious debate.

The sharp conflicts are everyday discussion topics, as gun-control advocates claim that firearms have a pivotal role in societal violence, and firearm enthusiasts clamor that restricting guns tramps on the intent and spirit of the Second Amendment.

One of the strengths of the Constitution is its inherent flexibility. The framers understood that the document would be modified over time if it was to remain relevant. A Constitution that embraced precise concepts of the 18th century could not necessarily be applicable to a society dependent on cell phones and Blackberrys. This does not make life easy for citizens or jurists, and brings to mind Winston Churchill's famous observation that democracy is a terrible system of government, but all the others are worse.

The murky language of the Second Amendment has created a battle line between both sides of the packing-heat or pack-them-away debate.

"No one has ever described the Constitution as a marvel of clarity, and the Second Amendment is perhaps one of the worst drafted of all its provisions," noted Sanford Levinson of the University of Texas at Austin School of Law in 1989 in "The Embarrassing Second Amendment" in the Yale Law Journal.

The amendment is one sentence comprising two clauses, which are the main cause of conflict.

The opening clause states: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State." No other amendment has a similar clause, which seems to ascribe its purpose, according to Levinson.

Gun control groups consider the clause precise and view the amendment as a collective right of the states to form militias.

The rest of the amendment's sentence, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed," loads the interpretation of pro-gun groups' belief that the Second Amendment grants citizens an absolute right to own firearms.

The word "militia" is a stumbling point. Written in a time when the tyranny of King George III was still a raw memory, it could be viewed as a right to arm military forces. However, in the 18th century, most adult males were part of a militia, so perhaps the framers used the word to imply everyman.

The Supreme Court has not fully interpreted the Second Amendment, but courts have agreed that it allows reasonable firearm restrictions.

The furious debate around the Second Amendment has prompted groups like U.S. Constitution Online (www. usconstitution.net) to propose replacing the Second Amendment with "a truer representation of how our society views our freedom to bear arms," by removing "militia" and focusing the amendment to ensure the "right of the people to keep arms reasonable for hunting, sport, collecting and personal defense."

As our nation grapples with the issue, we posed questions surrounding the Second Amendment to two recognized Tucson attorneys for whom the Second Amendment is integral to their practice:

Elliot A. Glicksman, who frequently pursues civil remedies for victims of crimes and represents crime victims, told us that "in a perfect world, guns would be treated like cars; people who own guns would have to take a proficiency test."

David T. Hardy, a federal firearms law authority, has written law review articles and a book, "Origins and Development of the Second Amendment: A Sourcebook," and co-authored "Michael Moore Is A Big Fat Stupid White Man" and "This Is Not an Assault" about the siege on the Branch Davidian compound outside Waco, Texas.

Star: Does the Second Amendment protect the individual's unlimited right to own a gun or other weapons? Or is it a collective right of the states and government to maintain militias?

Hardy: Modern scholarship accepts that the Second Amendment was meant to protect an individual right. Perhaps the best historical evidence is a 1789 newspaper explanation of the Bill of Rights, a comprehensive contemporary explanation, that refers to protecting citizens' "private arms." James Madison, drafter of the Bill of Rights, wrote a thank you letter to the author. Further, when the first Senate considered the Bill of Rights, there was a motion to make it a right to bear arms "for the common defense." The Senate voted down the idea.

Madison was trying to allay the fears of two groups. One feared that Congress would neglect the militia; the other feared that Congress might try to disarm individuals. Madison had to resolve both fears. This is why the amendment has two clauses.

Glicksman: The only U.S. Supreme Court case I'm aware of is "U.S. v. Miller," which held that it was a collective, not an individual, right.

Star: According to the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, in U.S. v. Miller (1939), "the High Court wrote that the 'obvious purpose' of the Second Amendment was 'to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness' of the state militia. The Court added that the Amendment 'must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.' "

Since Miller, the Supreme Court has addressed the Second Amendment in two cases: In Burton v. Sills, (1969), the Court upheld New Jersey's strict gun-control law, finding the appeal failed to present a "substantial federal question." And in Lewis v. United States (1980), the Court upheld the federal law banning felons from possessing guns, finding no "constitutionally protected liberties" infringed by the federal law, according to the Brady Center."

Star: Bazookas and missiles are "arms." Does the Second Amendment protect an individual's right to own them? Glicksman: Good question. Let's go one further. How about nuclear weapons? Why should I, a legitimate nuclear weapons collector, be punished because terrorists misuse them. Punish the evildoer. Remember, nuclear weapons don't kill people. Terrorists misusing nuclear weapons kill people.

Hardy: All rights have rational limits. We can recognize "freedom of speech" without having to protect blackmail and threatening phone calls.

There are various theories as to how to establish limits. Akhil Amar, a professor at Yale Law School, suggested that, since the original purpose was to allow the people to deter tyranny, a weapon that allows one person to become a tyrant through terror would not be protected.

I like to compare it to regulation of the press, which was known to the Bill of Rights framers, versus regulation of electronic broadcasting, which they could not foresee, would require licensing of frequencies to work. The framers could foresee rifles and pistols but not special problems posed by antiaircraft missiles or nuclear bombs.

Star: Is the regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration, a violation of the Second Amendment? Why or why not?

Hardy: It depends upon the regulation. What the framers clearly meant to take off the table is confiscation or prohibition. I see registration and licensing as facilitating that. It's hard to see how registration itself prevents crime. Even if a criminal did register his gun, he is unlikely to leave it with the victim. Glicksman: The First Amendment is not absolute. Some speech — yelling fire in a crowded theater — is not protected.

Should the Second Amendment be absolute? It can't be. Or else we couldn't prohibit felons from possessing weapons and I could take a gun with me on a plane.

Star: With the right to own a firearm, is a there an implicit responsibility to safely handle the firearm? Hardy: Everyone who has a gun and was not trained how to safely use it should obtain such training now. Every firearm accident that I have ever seen involved violation of not one, but several, simple safety rules. Gun safety is far simpler than automobile safety, but both require knowledge.

Star: A woman who carries a gun in her purse is required to have a concealed weapon permit. A person wearing a sidearm may be asked not to enter a place of business because of the sidearm. Are those restrictions on Second Amendment rights?

Hardy: The permit requirement is a restriction — courts have upheld those because it's a very moderate restriction; it doesn't restrict keeping, and only one form of bearing. A private business on the other hand isn't bound by the Bill of Rights.

Glicksman: Limiting people from having weapons in certain places like a bar or on a plane have always been upheld.

The Tucson City Council banned guns from city parks a number of years ago. The ordinance was challenged ("City of Tucson v. Rineer," 1998), but it was not challenged on Second Amendment grounds. Instead, it was challenged on the claim that the city couldn't regulate guns and on the amendment in the Arizona Constitution, not the U.S. Constitution. The City of Tucson won. The court held that it could ban guns from parks. Subsequently, the state Legislature enacted a statute that said only the state, and not individual cities, could regulate guns. If the Second Amendment grants an individual unfettered right to bear arms, why wasn't this ordinance challenged on Second Amendment grounds?

Star: Is there anything else you feel that our readers should know about the Second Amendment?

Hardy: One fascinating aspect of the American right to arms is not the Second but the 14th Amendment (1868). The original Bill of Rights only restricted the federal government (some states, for example, had established churches into the 1830s).

After the Civil War, Congress proposed, and the people ratified, the 14th Amendment, which forbade States to infringe the "privileges and immunities" of U.S. citizenship.

The congressional debates make it clear that a motivating factor was that the former Confederate states had passed the "Black Codes," which forbade blacks to own guns, and were disarming black Union veterans to make them vulnerable to Ku Klux Klan terror.

Yale professor Amar said that the Second Amendment vision was that "when guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns," and the 14th Amendment vision was "when guns are outlawed, only the Klan will have guns."

He sees the Second Amendment as protecting an individual but political right to resist governmental tyranny and the 14th Amendment as making this the "quintessential individual right," the right to defend one's home against criminal attack.

It's sometimes argued that we have a changing constitution. I find this difficult to accept: Why else would amending it require a super majority (two-thirds of Congress and three-fourth of the states)?

U.S. Constitution: Second Amendment

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.

Editor's note: The United States Constitution lays down the structure of the government and separates the powers among three distinct branches— the Legislative, Executive and Judicial. The landmark document was signed Sept. 17, 1787. Subsequently, the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, went into effect Dec. 15, 1791.

The Constitution imposes a series of checks and balances among the branches of government. The Bill of Rights guarantees that government cannot take away rights from its citizens and protects citizens from excessive government power.

On May 21, we presented a discussion on the First Amendment. Based on positive reader reaction to that story and suggestions that we continue civics discussions, we'll be exploring the entire Bill of Rights in the next few weeks. Read the May 21 article at www.azstarnet.com/opinion.

Today: the Second Amendment.

Editorial Writer Sam Negri contributed to this commentary. Contact Editorial Page Editor Ann Brown at 574-4235 or annbrown@azstarnet.com.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Arizona; US: District of Columbia
KEYWORDS: banglist; constitution; founders; gotfirearms; gotfreedom
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301 next last
IMHO, it seems to me that the 14th Amendment trumps the argument that the 2nd Amendment needs to be "incorporated" by a specific decision from the U.S. Supreme Court.
1 posted on 06/05/2006 12:35:34 PM PDT by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower
BANG!
2 posted on 06/05/2006 12:36:49 PM PDT by neverdem (May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
The framers understood that the document would be modified over time if it was to remain relevant.

Typical lib BS.
3 posted on 06/05/2006 12:38:53 PM PDT by JamesP81
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
The framers understood that the document would be modified over time if it was to remain relevant.

Which was why they carefully spelled out the procedures by which it would be modified.

Hooray for the dead Constitution!

4 posted on 06/05/2006 12:42:50 PM PDT by Restorer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JamesP81
Sooooooo, The Bill of Rights....Of The People, By The People, For The People.....all 10 amendments that make up The Bill of Rights...EVERY ONE EXCEPT THAT ONE???

My arse.

5 posted on 06/05/2006 12:43:16 PM PDT by Puppage (You may disagree with what I have to say, but I shall defend to your death my right to say it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

It's simple: the 2nd amendment details two thoughts. The one we are most familiar with is the right to keep and bear arms part. Which is absolutely accurate. The other part pertains to a state militia. Here's one that will really make the libs scream: the National Guard does not qualify as a state militia. The National Guard is under the command of government officials. In the legal tradition of the Framers, this makes it a standing army. The defining characteristic of the militia is that it does not answer to any elected or appointed government official.


6 posted on 06/05/2006 12:43:31 PM PDT by JamesP81
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
"No one has ever described the Constitution as a marvel of clarity, and the Second Amendment is perhaps one of the worst drafted of all its provisions," noted Sanford Levinson of the University of Texas at Austin School of Law

Shall not be infringed is pretty clear. And this guy went to law school? Sheesh!

7 posted on 06/05/2006 12:43:49 PM PDT by beltfed308 (Nanny Staters are Ameba's.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JamesP81

I hope you read the whole article. That concluding remarks don't strike me as liberal.


8 posted on 06/05/2006 12:43:50 PM PDT by neverdem (May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

It is clear to anyone who understands English syntax. Period. Let's put the Second Amendment FIRST!!!


9 posted on 06/05/2006 12:44:48 PM PDT by 2harddrive (...House a TOTAL Loss.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
While the topic is clear, the amendment is fraught with ambiguity and has been subject to conflicting interpretations and often acrimonious debate.

Not among constitutional scholars, even the most anti-gun of whom concede that the founders meant exactly what they said with the words "shall not be infringed."

It's only unclear to people who wish to disregard it.

10 posted on 06/05/2006 12:45:21 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Islam Factoid:After forcing young girls to watch his men execute their fathers, Muhammad raped them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Puppage

I was referring to the author's implication of what the constitution is. The libs usually say that it's a 'living document'. I suspect the author may have been trying to say a similar thing, without actually saying it.


11 posted on 06/05/2006 12:45:42 PM PDT by JamesP81
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: beltfed308

"Murky language," indeed.


12 posted on 06/05/2006 12:45:56 PM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks (BTUs are my Beat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Abram; albertp; AlexandriaDuke; Allosaurs_r_us; Americanwolf; Americanwolfsbrother; Annie03; ...
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
13 posted on 06/05/2006 12:46:10 PM PDT by freepatriot32 (Holding you head high & voting Libertarian is better then holding your nose and voting republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Puppage
Glicksman: The only U.S. Supreme Court case I'm aware of is "U.S. v. Miller," which held that it was a collective, not an individual, right.

Oh, it did NOT

The indictment alleged that on 18 April 1938, Jack Miller and Frank Layton transported a double-barreled 12 gauge shotgun – with barrels shorter than 18" – between Claremont, Oklahoma and Siloam Springs, Arkansas. Said shotgun had not been registered pursuant to Section 1132c of Title 26 United States Code (National Firearms Act, 48 Stat. 1237). Neither Miller nor Layton had, "in their possession astamped-affixed written order for said firearm as provided by Section 1132c…"2

14 posted on 06/05/2006 12:46:20 PM PDT by Puppage (You may disagree with what I have to say, but I shall defend to your death my right to say it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
I hope you read the whole article. That concluding remarks don't strike me as liberal.

Maybe I was a little bit hard on him. I've been wrong before...
15 posted on 06/05/2006 12:47:01 PM PDT by JamesP81
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: JamesP81
No, I wasn't refering to your post....I was refering to the article itself.

Pete

16 posted on 06/05/2006 12:47:20 PM PDT by Puppage (You may disagree with what I have to say, but I shall defend to your death my right to say it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
While the topic is clear, the amendment is fraught with ambiguity and has been subject to conflicting interpretations and often acrimonious debate.

Stop right there! It is neither ambiguous nor does it require deep interpretations. The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms. Only libs could make that ambiguous. 'Course, they're not sure of the meaning of 'is'.

17 posted on 06/05/2006 12:48:40 PM PDT by Rummyfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
One of the strengths of the Constitution is its inherent flexibility. The framers understood that the document would be modified over time if it was to remain relevant.

If the framers truly believed the Constitution was supposed to be "flexible," why did they go through all the trouble of ratifying it in the first place? They could've just said, "oh, we'll figure out the detais later, as we decide what's relevant!"

I agree that there may be limits to certain rights, but while the Framers' never anticipated Blackberrys and cell phones, they never anticipated the level of government intrusion in our lives, either. If they had, they might've doubled the number of states' rights!

18 posted on 06/05/2006 12:49:05 PM PDT by Lou L
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JamesP81
Typical lib BS.

No, here, the author is correct. He makes an error however with this line:

One of the strengths of the Constitution is its inherent flexibility

The constitution is a set of inflexible laws which may be amended through a formal and difficult process.

19 posted on 06/05/2006 12:49:10 PM PDT by NY.SS-Bar9 (DR #1692 Diligentia, Vis, Celeritas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
"firearms have a pivotal role in societal violence"

True to the extent that they PROTECT the good people from being the victims of bad people.

20 posted on 06/05/2006 12:49:35 PM PDT by BenLurkin ("The entire remedy is with the people." - W. H. Harrison)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Restorer; neverdem
The framers understood that the document would be modified over time if it was to remain relevant.

Sure, that's why the Constitution can be amended!

21 posted on 06/05/2006 12:49:53 PM PDT by Rummyfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
The one thing that is clear in the intent of the framers is that they felt that law-abiding citizens could arm themselves. They also didn't feel that gun ownership should be completely unregulated, as made evident in their opening words "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state . . ." (I'm going from memory here).

But with those two points in mind, the only real debate we should be having is over what constitutes the proper mode of regulation -- and we all believe in regulation whether we recognize it or not because none of us (God I hope) would permit ordinary citizens to pack 80 mm howitzers -- and how that regulation can best be implemented.

My own personal take is that no citizen who can prove that he or she is a law-abiding citizen should be prevented from purchasing or owning a reasonable firearm (I would stop short of true military weaponry). No waiting period, no delays, no other preconditions beyond proving they are a law-abiding citizen should apply.
22 posted on 06/05/2006 12:50:00 PM PDT by StJacques
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Citizens need guns for self protection and to keep their government afraid of them.

Would you trust a government led by Gore, Kerry, Teddy, Boxer, McKinney, Conyers, Murtha, Waters, Schumer, etc?

I wouldn't.


23 posted on 06/05/2006 12:51:24 PM PDT by garyhope
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Actually, the framer's intent is only unclear to folks who WANT it unclear. For everbody else, there are the Federalist Papers, which make the intent very clear indeed.


24 posted on 06/05/2006 12:51:29 PM PDT by Little Ray (If you want to be a martyr, we want to martyr you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
I've been reading Elliot's Debates. Basically, the minutes of the First Congress, where they were discussing the New Republic, the limits of the Federal Power, the usurpation of State powers left over from the Confederacy, the protections of fundamental Rights to prevent States and cities from infringing on those Rights REQUIRED to be considered "free", ect...

Today's government bears ZERO resemblance to what the Founders set up and argued about.

25 posted on 06/05/2006 12:51:44 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (It is not the oath that makes us believe the man, but the man the oath.- Aeschylus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
A private business on the other hand isn't bound by the Bill of Rights.

This person shows a complete ignorance of what thie BOR is. People are not bound by the bill of rights, Government is restricted by it.

26 posted on 06/05/2006 12:52:10 PM PDT by NY.SS-Bar9 (DR #1692 Diligentia, Vis, Celeritas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: beltfed308
"No one has ever described the Constitution as a marvel of clarity, and the Second Amendment is perhaps one of the worst drafted of all its provisions," noted Sanford Levinson of the University of Texas at Austin School of Law

This bozo has the nerve to call himself a law professor? Students at UT Law, you deserve a refund. The Constitution has stood for over two hundred years. How many other Western democracies can say that they have been under the same governing document for that time? And contrary to Levinson's statement it is actually a marvel of clarity, when one discounts emanations from the penumbras!

27 posted on 06/05/2006 12:53:42 PM PDT by Rummyfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

In the twentieth century, estimates are that 34 million people were killed in wars.

The same study estimates that 196 million people were killed by their own governments.

To all the liberal lurkers: you may say you hate war, but defending yourself in war is better than being quietly killed because of your politics.

Arm everyone.


28 posted on 06/05/2006 12:55:43 PM PDT by tcostell (MOLON LABE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rummyfan
This bozo has the nerve to call himself a law professor? Students at UT Law, you deserve a refund.

You got that right! If the stakes were not so high it would be hilarious.

29 posted on 06/05/2006 12:56:22 PM PDT by beltfed308 (Nanny Staters are Ameba's.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

It is the right of the PEOPLE WHO BEAR ARMS because it is THEY who make up the militia.The founding fathers never had a national guard in the official sense and they never intended the constitution to be changed.The possibility of change is a liberal lie because they believe the constitution to be a "living document",therefore using this fallacy to create gun control.


30 posted on 06/05/2006 12:57:03 PM PDT by INSENSITIVE GUY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray
"Actually, the framer's intent is only unclear to folks who WANT it unclear. For everbody else, there are the Federalist Papers, which make the intent very clear indeed."

I liked that so much I decided it should be repeated.

And we also have James Madison's Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787
31 posted on 06/05/2006 12:57:57 PM PDT by StJacques
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: StJacques
My own personal take is that no citizen who can prove that he or she is a law-abiding citizen should be prevented from purchasing or owning a reasonable firearm (I would stop short of true military weaponry). No waiting period, no delays, no other preconditions beyond proving they are a law-abiding citizen should apply.

The framers intended (and the USSC has ruled in Miller) that the 2A applies to arms commonly in use by the military. The true test is whether or not the weapon is "discriminatory". A rifle would be OK, things like land mines and bombs not.

32 posted on 06/05/2006 12:58:42 PM PDT by NY.SS-Bar9 (DR #1692 Diligentia, Vis, Celeritas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
While the topic is clear, the amendment is fraught with ambiguity and has been subject to conflicting interpretations and often acrimonious debate

The Amendment is clear. What is fraught with ambiguity are the morons (liberals) who cannot read.

33 posted on 06/05/2006 12:59:17 PM PDT by Fighting Irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
The murky language of the Second Amendment has created a battle line between both sides of the packing-heat or pack-them-away debate.

Murky? 'Shall NOT be infringed' is clear and unambiguous language. Only those against the 2nd Amendment would try to redefine it.

Molon labe!!

34 posted on 06/05/2006 12:59:54 PM PDT by CrawDaddyCA (Free Travis McGee!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CrawDaddyCA

Love your tag line!


35 posted on 06/05/2006 1:01:23 PM PDT by beltfed308 (Nanny Staters are Ameba's.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Rummyfan
Read it plain. Like the Founders said to. "Supreme Law of the Land" means exactly that. "... or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding" also means EXACTLY that. When it also states, "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED", with no qualifier on who may not do the infringing, then even a City's "home rule" provision shouldn't be able to nullify that Right's protection.

If your local ordnance says "no open carry of handguns", that is plainly an "infringment". If your States requires you to prove your innocence and pay extra taxes and fines to exercise said Right, that is ALSO an "infringement" as well as a violation of self incrimination.

The current legal fiction does not adhere to this. Nor will you find many justices willing to uphold their Oath under the Constitution and rule this way. The government has entirely too much to lose should things return to the way they should be.

36 posted on 06/05/2006 1:01:28 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (It is not the oath that makes us believe the man, but the man the oath.- Aeschylus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: EdReform

read later


37 posted on 06/05/2006 1:03:46 PM PDT by EdReform (Protect our 2nd Amendment Rights - Join the NRA today - www.nra.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: StJacques
But with those two points in mind, the only real debate we should be having is over what constitutes the proper mode of regulation -- and we all believe in regulation whether we recognize it or not because none of us (God I hope) would permit ordinary citizens to pack 80 mm howitzers -- and how that regulation can best be implemented.

Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People. --Tench Coxe

I think it was fairly clear that the founders intended the militia to have access to modern military arms, and that the militia did not answer to the government.

IOW, yes, if some people got together to form a civil militia then it should legally be allowed to procure field artillery if it so decided. As long as it was well-regulated, and by that I mean reasonably disciplined, the government wouldn't legally have a leg to stand on. That, of course, wouldn't stop them from arresting everyone involved.
38 posted on 06/05/2006 1:04:21 PM PDT by JamesP81
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: StJacques
"...and we all believe in regulation whether we recognize it or not because none of us (God I hope) would permit ordinary citizens to pack 80 mm howitzers -- and how that regulation can best be implemented."

Learn history. "Back in the day", private individuals and institutions were allowed to do EXACTLY that. What do you think those PRIVATE sailing ships were armed with?? Spit-ball shooters???

39 posted on 06/05/2006 1:04:34 PM PDT by Wonder Warthog (The Hog of Steel-NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: NY.SS-Bar9
"The framers intended (and the USSC has ruled in Miller) that the 2A applies to arms commonly in use by the military. The true test is whether or not the weapon is "discriminatory". A rifle would be OK, things like land mines and bombs not."

I accept that as sounding about right. I have read commentaries and heard discussions of Miller, but I have never read the text of the decision itself and on important matters I generally like to see for myself what is stated. But I have little doubt that some standard rational beings could recognize as "reasonable" [I do not necessarily refer to libs as "rational beings"] has been applied as the basis for regulation.
40 posted on 06/05/2006 1:04:50 PM PDT by StJacques
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: NY.SS-Bar9

How 'bout an RPG or ATGM? I think its disciminating (I want to take out THAT tank THERE!) - if I just happen to get the troops around it, that's a bonus...

All things considered, I figure the Second Amendment applies to any weapon an infantryman might carry.


41 posted on 06/05/2006 1:05:58 PM PDT by Little Ray (If you want to be a martyr, we want to martyr you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Yeah, the debate over the Second Amendment is really a Fourteenth Amendment discussion now.

The Second is clear that the federal government can't interfere with either the peoples' or the states' RKBA.

42 posted on 06/05/2006 1:06:24 PM PDT by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JamesP81
"Who are the militia? . . ."

I would say the "law-abiding citizenry" are the milita. Which I think translates to "ourselves" from the quote you posted.
43 posted on 06/05/2006 1:06:56 PM PDT by StJacques
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Everybody uses* Miller. Look at Cruikshank for a good read on the Supremes and the Second Amendment.

*misuses and misconstrues.
44 posted on 06/05/2006 1:11:28 PM PDT by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Does the Second Amendment protect the individual's unlimited right to own a gun or other weapons? Or is it a collective right of the states and government to maintain militias?

Is there a conceivable reason that it can't mean both?

45 posted on 06/05/2006 1:11:40 PM PDT by pcottraux (It's pronounced "P. Coe-troe.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JamesP81; neverdem
The defining characteristic of the militia is that it does not answer to any elected or appointed government official.

The passengers of United Flight 93 were a militia.

46 posted on 06/05/2006 1:11:41 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: StJacques; DMZFrank
"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state . . ." (I'm going from memory here).

IIRC, regulated in that time frame was thought to mean that all the able bodied men had an individual long gun, a basic load of ammo, and could shoot with acceptable accuracy.

But with those two points in mind, the only real debate we should be having is over what constitutes the proper mode of regulation -- and we all believe in regulation whether we recognize it or not because none of us (God I hope) would permit ordinary citizens to pack 80 mm howitzers -- and how that regulation can best be implemented.

My own personal take is that no citizen who can prove that he or she is a law-abiding citizen should be prevented from purchasing or owning a reasonable firearm (I would stop short of true military weaponry).

The militia was expected to show up with current military hardware. How were merchantmen expected to arm their vessels with cannons after being granted Letters of Marque and Reprisal?

47 posted on 06/05/2006 1:12:14 PM PDT by neverdem (May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
"right of the people to keep arms reasonable for hunting, sport, collecting and personal defense."

What total and complete BS.

The framers just finished fighting the legal government. It is clear to me that the 2nd Amendment was included to guarantee the People a means to overthrow any future government that didn't follow the will of the People.
48 posted on 06/05/2006 1:12:25 PM PDT by Beckwith (The liberal media has picked sides and they've sided with the Jihadists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
Today's government bears ZERO resemblance to what the Founders set up and argued about.

If the Founders were still around, I think they'd be ashamed of what we've become.
49 posted on 06/05/2006 1:12:44 PM PDT by JamesP81
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: StJacques

Found the specific section that differentiates between the military and non military folks:

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/convention/debates/0823.html



50 posted on 06/05/2006 1:12:58 PM PDT by Fighting Irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson