Framers' intent still hotly debated

ARIZONA DAILY STAR ^ | 06.04.2006 | Ann Brown

[Little Ray]

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.

[mrsmith]

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.

[StJacques]

"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.

[DBrow]

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

*misuses and misconstrues.

[pcottraux]

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?

[Paleo Conservative]

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.

[neverdem]

"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?

[Beckwith]

"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.

[JamesP81]

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.

[Fighting Irish]

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

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

[StJacques]

"Learn history. "Back in the day", private individuals and institutions were allowed to do EXACTLY that. . . ."

Local militias were only permitted to acquire artillery pieces once they organized and placed themselves under state control, although the order in which these aspects of the "legal" scenario often occurred was less than perfect. But private citizens were not permitted to "bear" such arms by themselves.

And yes; those private sailing ships were well-armed and a logical argument probably can be made that this is evidence of unrestricted access to arms. But I would respond that that goes a bit far.

The 2nd Amendment says "well-regulated." That must have had some meaning to the framers, otherwise they would not have put it in.

[pgyanke]

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.

Two BIG problems with your assumption:

1) "Regulated" in the parlance of the day meant "prepared". The clause meant that the government should answer to you and me. The militia (armed citizenry) would ensure their compliance. The only militia the government should respect is one that is prepared to take them on. "A well-regulated militia being essential to a free state..." (from memory... apologize if syntax in error...) means that we are free because we can keep the government from oppressing us by force. "They answer to us" is the model of our institution.

2) If "none of us would permit" that us peon commoners shouldn't have Howitzers, how do you explain "Letters of Mark"? By these letters, the early federal government could commission private warships for service. Considering the fact that the warship was the nuclear weapon of that age, I don't see how we can all agree with your assumption.

[the OlLine Rebel]

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

Uhuh. There you go again implying that what someone did 200 years ago is irrelevent.

Sorry, hon, but the main reason was to cover all bases that may have been omitted. That's not the same as "relevency".

[gjbevil]

In the 2nd Am. "Well Regulated" does not mean regulated as in controlled by rules and regulations. "Well Regulated" means "efficiently working" like a well oiled machine that is "regulated" or timed effectively.

[StJacques]

". . . 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?"

"Letters of Marque and Reprisal" are papers of authorization given by the government, which implies regulation, since the legitimacy of action derives from government sanction.

[Hostage]

However, in the 18th century, most adult males were part of a militia, so perhaps the framers used the word to imply everyman

Therein lies the crux of the problem. The 'People' and their government have separated ways.

[the OlLine Rebel]

"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."



I am so sick of this nonsense. By studying the history before, during, and right after that time, it is CLEAR what was meant! ARMS SHALL NOT BE DENIED FOR ANYONE! (and the "militia" is STILL every able-bodied man!)

[pepsi_junkie]

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.

It cannot be said too often, the constitution does not give THE PEOPLE rights! The Government governs by our consent, and the constitution outlines exactly what powers THE GOVERNMENT has. This is why our system of government was revolutionary, it turned the notion of the people as subject to the whims of government upside down.

Alas, 200 years later far too many people think we get our rights from the government via the constitution. Once you accept that premise, the idea that they can take them away follows directly. Hence we debate the meaning of the two fragments of the ammendment in the light of "did they really give us this right" rather than reading it in the correct way, which is to say that nothing in the 2nd ammendment grants the government the power to regulate firearms. Period. And without explicitly being given the authority by the people, it simply doesnt have it, no matter how many liberals want it otherwise. Unless we all forget what the constitution really does.

[untrained skeptic]

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.

Modified, yes. Reinterpreted? Absolutely not.

The meaning of the constitution, or other legal documents does not change over time. If it needs to be changed, it contains a process for it to be changed. It can only be changed through constitutional amendments, not through reinterpretation.

Judges who try and reinterpret the constitution are usurping power not granted to them under the constitution. They are attacking the core principles of our government. They are committing treason.

[Restorer]

Exactly.

Interestingly, we have few discussions today about possible amendments. Probably because the "modification" of the constitution is presently being routinely handled by the Supremes.