Well Regulated - Page 2

Crazy88Fingers · February 8, 2013, 12:06 AM

Keep in mind that nearly everything the Founders said and wrote suggests (if not explicitly states) that the right to bear arms was a safeguard against tyrannical government. I doubt they wanted the right to bear arms to be subjected to strict regulations from the very entity it was designed to protect us from.

**Aguila Blanca** · February 8, 2013, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zxcvbob

USSC has already addressed that at least somewhat in the 1936 Miller decision -- military weapons are the MOST protected and subject to the least restrictions, not the most restriction. That is what the prefatory clause is all about.

But if you read the full majority decision for Heller (both the actual holding and the dicta), you'll see that Justice Scalia argues right around a right to keep and bear "military" weapons and turns it into a right to keep and bear those "civilian" (non-military) weapons in common use. And he specifically states that this (in his opinion) is not contrary to Miller.

**Aguila Blanca** · February 8, 2013, 01:31 PM

I had some time to look up the Heller decision.

First, as to the relationship between the militia clause and the main body of the amendment:

Quote:

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.

[Emphasis added]

Quote:

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.

[Emphasis added]

nazshooter · February 8, 2013, 02:54 PM

Samnavy:
Be careful who you use that argument with. There are actually a significant number of folks who would have no problem with your examples and we already have watered down versions of them. Consider the mileage mandates and "smart growth" just as two examples.

Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2

nazshooter · February 8, 2013, 03:18 PM

AB: It sounds like the basic reasoning is that the types of weapons that one would expect the militia to bring with them when called out were roughly the same as what they might already have for hunting, home defense etc and therefore those were the kinds of weapons being protected. What sorts of weapons would the modern militia leaders expect people to show up with if they were needed today? Obviously AR-15 type weapons with normal capacity magazines would be very welcome as would be scoped hunting/sniper rifles. In short, it sounds like Scalia was trying to head off the "so everyone now has the right to a nuclear weapon" argument.

Unlike some, I don't think the question is entirely academic. Anyone who has been paying attention to our budget problems can see that we won't be able to maintain anything like our current military forever.

Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2

Brian Pfleuger · February 8, 2013, 03:19 PM

Quote:

United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.

I would agree with this statement IF Gura's qualifying clause of (essentially) "in common use or WOULD BE in common use had they not been banned."

There are very, very few weapons that would not meet the "Common Use" criteria under "Gura's Clause". Certainly all "small arms" of every type would be in common use, were they legal... they were until 1986.

thecelt · February 8, 2013, 05:32 PM

Well regulated = well organized/maintained

hermannr · February 8, 2013, 06:55 PM

very inderesting write-up on this question, here:

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/unabridged.2nd.html

Levant · February 8, 2013, 09:35 PM

BMTJ, CCWs are just a form of gun registration. In fact, in many states you have to register exactly what guns you own and add them to your right-to-bear-arms license.

Every time the government gives us a token of our rights and we accept it, then we accept and confirm that our rights are gifts from Washington.

February 8, 2013, 12:06 AM	#26
Crazy88Fingers Senior Member Join Date: November 20, 2010 Location: WesTex Posts: 958	Keep in mind that nearly everything the Founders said and wrote suggests (if not explicitly states) that the right to bear arms was a safeguard against tyrannical government. I doubt they wanted the right to bear arms to be subjected to strict regulations from the very entity it was designed to protect us from. __________________ "And I'm tellin' you son, well it ain't no fun, staring straight down a .44" -Lynyrd Skynyrd

February 8, 2013, 02:54 PM	#29
nazshooter Senior Member Join Date: November 7, 2008 Posts: 151	Samnavy: Be careful who you use that argument with. There are actually a significant number of folks who would have no problem with your examples and we already have watered down versions of them. Consider the mileage mandates and "smart growth" just as two examples. Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2

February 8, 2013, 03:18 PM	#30
nazshooter Senior Member Join Date: November 7, 2008 Posts: 151	AB: It sounds like the basic reasoning is that the types of weapons that one would expect the militia to bring with them when called out were roughly the same as what they might already have for hunting, home defense etc and therefore those were the kinds of weapons being protected. What sorts of weapons would the modern militia leaders expect people to show up with if they were needed today? Obviously AR-15 type weapons with normal capacity magazines would be very welcome as would be scoped hunting/sniper rifles. In short, it sounds like Scalia was trying to head off the "so everyone now has the right to a nuclear weapon" argument. Unlike some, I don't think the question is entirely academic. Anyone who has been paying attention to our budget problems can see that we won't be able to maintain anything like our current military forever. Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2

February 8, 2013, 05:32 PM	#32
thecelt Member Join Date: March 8, 2005 Location: ny Posts: 87	Well regulated = well organized/maintained

February 8, 2013, 06:55 PM	#33
hermannr Senior Member Join Date: March 24, 2011 Posts: 730	very inderesting write-up on this question, here: http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/unabridged.2nd.html

February 8, 2013, 09:35 PM	#34
Levant Senior Member Join Date: July 5, 2008 Posts: 182	BMTJ, CCWs are just a form of gun registration. In fact, in many states you have to register exactly what guns you own and add them to your right-to-bear-arms license. Every time the government gives us a token of our rights and we accept it, then we accept and confirm that our rights are gifts from Washington.