Posted on 04/09/2016 7:24:07 AM PDT by rktman
LOL! The way I read it is that sawed off shotguns were not standard weapons of the military at that time. And that was about it. But sadly it’s been made out as individuals have no right to military style weapons. Or something.
The Court said it "was not in evidence" that a short barreled shotgun was in use by the military (they were, of course) be cause Miller was dead and no one was present for his side to present such evidence.
The link I provided goes over many federal court cases that dishonestly "cite" Miller to justify anti-second amendment decisions. Those in turn are cited by other courts. Lies upon lies.
Even a semi-educated individual like myself can plainly see that the first part recognizes the need for and desirability of a citizen militia, and that no part of it limits the right to that militia.
“(A)ll regulations tending to render this general militia useless and defenseless by establishing select corps of militia, or distinct bodies of military men not having permanent interests and attachments in the community, to be avoided.”The wording of the Second Amendment does not specify “state militia(s)”. It encompasses Richard Henry Lee’s definition of a militia as the whole people, who exercise the duty of the protection of a free state.
I no longer CARE what it means.
Since those in government are criminals now, why should I obey firearms law?
If you ban it, I will not comply.
If you come to take it, I will kill you.
If you take it when I am not home, I will kill you.
What does the phrase "The right of the people to keep and bear arms" mean?
Well, if you complied with those statists, then you would essentially not care what it means.
“Unconstitutional SCOTUS decisions do not override the Constitution as written and originally understood and interpreted (Art VI, Sec 2) and should be treated by the states as null and void....THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT GIVE SCOTUS THE POWER TO MAKE NATIONAL LAW. That is the job on Congress.”
What if SCOTUS justices Kagan, Sotomayor, Garland, Feinstein & Schumer declare “there is no individual right to own a gun”?
Can the states guarantee & defend a Constitutional right which SCOTUS has abrogated? Or OTOH as El Rushbo has said, “If you think the Second Amendment applies universally, try getting a pistol permit in New York City.”
Well, again , if you start on the right footing that these amendments including the second are not granting rights but rather prohibiting the feds from violating certain explicit samplings of general presumed rights (9th Amendment), then you realize that whatever militia it is, the feds cannot interfere with it.
Again if it is not an enumerated power delegated to the feds by the Constitution, it is a power reserved for the states and people respectively (10th Amendment). So there’s no constitutional issue about the feds having no power to violate the people’s power to have a militia whether it’s a state militia or a “whole people’s” militia.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
If the Democrats or some GOPe hack wins in November, the Second Amendment won’t mean anything.
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” Tenth Amendment.
Powers not delegated to the feds by the Constitution are reserved for the states and the people of those states. So things like gun ownership are STATES’ issues to be decided by the people of each state.
So if the people in a state decide they want to reject unconstitutional federal acts, like that in your hypo, which by definition are acts of tyranny, then the state should nullify such acts and render them void and of no effect on the people of that state.
The states and the people of the states are where the battle for the Constitution and political and individual freedom is. All that is needed to recover our Constitution and our freedom is the determined will of the people to do so.
That’s correct except it is NOT a “bill of rights” but a reminder to feds not to violate an explicit sampling from a large volume of presumed rights. “Bills of Rights” are for communist countries.
James Madison called them "bill of rights" I will defer to him.
I give you my support and agreement.
Nicely stated. Thank you.
Need a site for that quote but the Ninth Amendment very clearly says that the first eight amendments NOT a “bill of rights” in the sense of a complete list. If anything, they are a list of prohibitions against the feds, but again certainly not a complete list.
The whole effort of the first ten amendments was forced upon Madison and the federalists by the anti-federalists who would not ratify the Constitution without amendments expressly naming certain state and individual rights and freedoms presumed in the Constitution. The Constitution presumes our rights as God-given as stated in the persuasive authority of the Declaration of Independence.
The federalists did not want this sampling because they thought, rightly as it turned out, that it would be taken as a complete list of rights. The anti-federalists insisted on it because they thought, rightly as it turned out, that the feds would commandeer everything not explicitly prohibited them by these amendments even though the only valid power the feds have are those enumerated powers delegated by the Constitution.
The Ninth and Tenth Amendments clearly spell these things out, but predictably, the feds have ignored the 9A and 10A and people are confused about them as they are about the presumptions of the Constitution and the perversions perpetrated upon it and them by the feds.
Just for starters, if it was about the Natl Guard (which didn’t exit), why would it be in the Bill of Rights?
That is an argument that doesn’t make sense at all, like saying that freedom of speech is only for Govt news agencies.
“Alexander Hamilton explained that if the government ever tried to oppress the people with a standing army, that army would be countered by “a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens.”
An important point - a right to BEAR arms doesn’t just mean a right to march in formation, you can actually fire them at the tyrants and their enforcers you have in your sights.
I wonder how this defense would fly in court.
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.