Constitutional Basics

[44 AMP]

I also think that we as gun owners need to support reasonable measures that seek to limit the access of firearms to the mentally unstable and those who are convicted felons.

We have reasonable measures, and have had for a long time.

I don't consider more laws "reasonable". Enforcing existing laws better is reasonable, the way I see it.

[Roamin_Wade]

I don't have the time, or the inclination, to teach all of you how it works. Only I understand the law and if you do not agree with me, you are wrong. I actually got all my knowledge of how the Constitution works from some webpage on the internet so it must actually be how it is!!! Now move out of the way from the TV, I'm playing a video game right now... (says the common 18 year old these days)

[davidsog]

We have reasonable measures, and have had for a long time.

Which is all good and constitutes your opinion.

I don't consider more laws "reasonable". Enforcing existing laws better is reasonable, the way I see it.

Obviously, there are many folks who do not agree with your opinion hence the debate and political theater.

I happen to agree with you but as gun owners we need a better response than:

We have reasonable measures, and have had for a long time.

In order to fight back.

Things like measurable metrics and facts. Not just parroting an opinion.

I think we have interrupted an informed legal debate between Brownstone322 and Aguila Blanca which I was interested in seeing continue. I just thought the history was interesting and backed up a SCOTUS Justice opinion I recently read on the meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

That meaning being we do not have an unfettered right to a gun but rather a right/duty to maintain a viable defense. It does not secure the right to shoot paper targets but rather the right to arm ourselves to defend the nation and if necessary, the inalienable rights bestowed by our creator as outlined in our Constitution.

You have to remember, the Musket was not a hunting weapon. Hunting was for rifles. The musket was a weapon of war in its day and every bit equivalent to an AR-15.

This Article for example:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.1b1358366d9c

Seeks to invalidate the 2nd Amendment because at the time it was written, the Musket was the weapon of choice for warfare.

It is a factually incorrect article though. The average Musketman could get off 7 to 8 shots a minute with paper cartridges. The average rifleman could only get off 2-3 shots per minute because he had to fight the rifling to seat the bullet.

That is why Muskets were used instead of rifles and ruled the Battlefield until the advent of the miniball and rifled musket. Massed firepower followed with a bayonet using the tactics of the day made the Musket very lethal in comparison to a rifle.

The rifle was considered a tool to feed your family outside of a small military niche of scouts/skirmishers in the Military tactics of the day. The Musket was a weapon of war and equipped the footsoldiers of the worlds army's.

In the 21st Century, the equivalent weapon of war would be an AR-15 or similar semi-automatic shoulder fired magazine fed small arm.

The clear intention of our Founding Fathers in drafting the 2nd Amendment was for our citizenry to be able to defend itself to include Government run amok. They wanted the Militia, Militia being every able bodied male, to be able to do its job.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Just to comment that NRA folks say that the defense against tyranny doesn't sell for them. Heller starts off with self-defense as primary.

Held:
1.
The Second Amendment protects
an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in
a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such
as self-defense within the home.
Pp. 2–53.

The lack of mention of defense against tyranny as a primary and focusing on self-defense has created a paradigm that accepts limits on the higher capacity weapons for many courts.

[davidsog]

Just to comment that NRA folks say that the defense against tyranny doesn't sell for them.

Absolutely. While the historical context and IMHO, a defense against tyranny was on the forefront of the framers minds after securing their liberty from the largest empire the world had seen at that time it does not make a great lead in.

However I interpreted the phrase:

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia,

I agree with the NRA assertion because it is a natural development of the wording of our laws. I was taught that at the time of Founding Fathers, You were a member of the "militia" of the United States simply by being a citizen and have a duty to uphold. Acquiring a weapon was not connected to militia service because the militia only serves or forms when called upon. That fact a militia does not form does not divest one of their duty to be prepared.

In the modern interpretation, I think that duty to be prepared to defend holds up. The Supreme Court has already ruled that Police do not have a duty to protect individuals but rather society. The individual has already been given a clear mandate to provide their own defense.

The Militia Act of 1792 states:

That whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, to call forth such number of the militia

One was always in the Militia. It is not something that necessarily meets or forms at time other than when called upon. It is NOT the National Guard or Reserves, those are modern developments. It was a seperate entity unto itself that every male citizen was a part of as a condition of citizenship.

That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia,

And that:

That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.

Every male was automatically in the Militia and each had to provide his own weapon capable of sustaining modern warfare on the battlefield. Each man was an infantryman as part of his responsibility as a citizen of the United States.

https://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

Each State had it's own Militia laws. Common theme is that membership in that militia is automatic and it is up to the member to provide his own arms. What is not automatic is the formation or actual use of that militia.

X. …[Fine for foot soldier not appearing with a firelock and bayonet set at three shilling and the fine for appearing without a sword cartouch-box and three charges of powder three shillings. Failure to appear at all ten shillings.]

XIII. [Allowed twelve months for each soldier to provide himself with arms and ammunition an required that they attend musters during that time “with such arms as he hath, and is already furnished with.”]

http://www.flintriflesmith.com/Writi...litia_laws.htm

Even before we became a nation, the Tradition of Militia was well rooted in the New World.

The Salem Colony directed:

General Court established the first military legislation�a simple requirement for universal military service phrased as a requirement for all adult males (except ministers and magistrates) to possess arms;

https://history.army.mil/reference/mamil/MAMIL.HTM

Therefore, the SCOTUS interpretation as found in District of Columbia vs Heller is correct:

Opinion of the Court
Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.”
This contrasts markedly with the phrase “the militia” in
the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the “militia”
in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people”—those
who were male, able bodied, and within a
certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as
protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an
organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative
clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the
people.”
We start therefore with a strong presumption that the
Second Amendment right is exercised individually and
belongs to all Americans.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

So, any argument that the 2nd Amendment only applies to organized military forces or confined to sporting arms is simply not factual.

IMHO, An AR-15 or Military Style arm is not a by-product of the 2nd Amendment, it is central too and the implicit reason for that Amendment.

[FITASC]

I happen to agree with you but as gun owners we need a better response than:

Quote:
We have reasonable measures, and have had for a long time.
In order to fight back.

How about this? WE are DONE
WE will no longer entertain ANY talk of more "reasonable" gun control
WE want some give back for everything we have given up
If YOU do not like that, WE are prepared for Civil War

enough is enough, I am DONE
They will not be "civil" until they have won back the house, senate and president; then there is NO discourse or compromise.

[davidsog]

How about this? WE are DONE
WE will no longer entertain ANY talk of more "reasonable" gun control
WE want some give back for everything we have given up
If YOU do not like that, WE are prepared for Civil War

enough is enough, I am DONE
They will not be "civil" until they have won back the house, senate and president; then there is NO discourse or compromise.

You think frothing at the mouth or threatening violence makes the case stronger?

I think we can be firm and resolute without threats. I also think civil discourse is imperative for both sides. It is just as much a duty of citizenship as defense when it fails.

[rickyrick]

Well then, the second amendment is done then. It’s only intention is to defend against a tyrannical government, so if you can’t do that there’s no point in ownership of firearms.
I’m not a fighter, so I am merely taking advantage of the second amendment for my own entertainment and the slim chance I may need to defend myself.

[davidsog]

It’s only intention is to defend against a tyrannical government,

Not sure how you got that out of what was posted.

What was said:

2nd Amendment was for our citizenry to be able to defend itself

Which is kind of EXACTLY in line with SCOTUS ruling in District of Columbia vs Heller.

[FITASC]

You think frothing at the mouth or threatening violence makes the case stronger?

I think we can be firm and resolute without threats. I also think civil discourse is imperative for both sides. It is just as much a duty of citizenship as defense when it fails.

And I think you are underestimating your enemies' you still are under the illusion that they WANT civil discourse, and in that vein you are completely misguided. You are a fool to think they even WANT civil discourse. They are counting on you to divide and conquer and you are the fool they are playing to

[heyjoe]

Quote:
How about this? WE are DONE
WE will no longer entertain ANY talk of more "reasonable" gun control
WE want some give back for everything we have given up
If YOU do not like that, WE are prepared for Civil War

enough is enough, I am DONE
They will not be "civil" until they have won back the house, senate and president; then there is NO discourse or compromise.

This kind of chest beating reflects badly on all gun owners. Its no wonder why many consider us to be gun nuts.

[FITASC]

And you are part of the problem and not the solution. You THINK you can have a reasonable discourse and reach an agreement, What have they given up? NOTHING. What have you given up? What is this "in return?" Again, nothing...... When are YOU going to STOP giving up in return for nothing?

WOW.......you are more concerned about maybes and what ifs and not about what IS

[rickyrick]

Leaders and other very influential people are equating the NRA and it’s members as a hate group... but let’s not upset them by using strong words... give me a break.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by heyjoe

This kind of chest beating reflects badly on all gun owners. Its no wonder why many consider us to be gun nuts.

This is why the NRA says the defense against tyranny doesn't play well for them. It's not that they don't believe the 2A includes a RKBA to arm the citizenry against an over-encroaching government. The problem is that an organization of the size and visibility of the NRA can't realistically stand up and acknowledge that a primary intent of the 2A was (and is) to arm the populace for a possible insurrection.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by davidsog

What was said:

Which is kind of EXACTLY in line with SCOTUS ruling in District of Columbia vs Heller.

Have you read Heller ... carefully? It's a lot of pages, but most of them are what's called "dicta," which is a legalistic term for "fluff." Heller actually "held" that Dick Heller has a right to keep an operational handgun in his home for the purpose of defending himself when at home.

Heller didn't address a right to self defense outside of the home [it also didn't deny that such a right may exist -- it simply dodged that question]. Heller also certainly didn't address any purported right of "the People" to defend themselves against the government itself.

The Heller ruling was very narrowly focused, by design and intent. In fact, the lawsuit itself was narrowly focused, because it was planned as a first step in a long, incremental process. It is what it is -- don't read into it any more than what it is. The most important thing we gained from Heller was the Supreme Court's recognition that the RKBA is an individual right, unconnected to military service. That puts a stake through the heart of the anti-gunners' claims that the 2A applies only to militia service, and that today the National Guard is the militia. (Hint: it isn't.)

[Spats McGee]

Let me apologize on the front end if I've missed key points. It's early, I'm just now on my 2nd cup of coffee, and I haven't given this thread the detailed reading that it may deserve. With all of those said, I'll toss out a couple of points:

1. Yes, there are a metric ton of people who get their "understanding" of constitutional law from sound bites. (And I'll be the first to tell you that I have grown exceptionally weary of the self-righteous Facebook Experts.)

2. Heller was not the be-all-end-all, expanding gun rights anywhere and everywhere, but it was a very big step in constitutional & 2A law. When I was in law school, we basically skipped from the 1A to the 4A in two sentences. "The 2A is the gun amendment and the 3A is about quartering soldiers. Now let's talk about the 4A." In reading legal decisions, though, it's important to remember that appellate courts only answer the questions in front of them. Anything else is an advisory opinion, and our courts don't do those.

3. I think gun control groups and leaders have made it clear that they are not interested in civil discourse. As for me, I'm fresh out of "compromises" on gun control.

[USNRet93]

Originally Posted by FITASC

Some snipped...
They will not be "civil" until they have won back the house, senate and president; then there is NO discourse or compromise.

Just for info.

Gun Laws Signed By Obama Expanded Rights
During his first term Obama didn't call for any major new restriction on guns or gun owners. Instead he urged authorities to enforce the state and federal laws already on the books. In fact, Obama signed only two major laws that address how guns are carried in America, and both actually expand the rights of gun owners.

One of the laws allows gun owners to carry weapons in national parks; that law took effect in February 2012 and replaced President Ronald Reagan's policy of required guns be locked in glove compartments of trunks of car that enter national parks.

Another gun law signed by Obama allows Amtrak passengers to carry guns in checked baggage, a move that reversed a measure put in place after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

This when Obama and congress were democrat majority.

https://www.thoughtco.com/obama-gun-...ngress-3367595

I just don't think it's as 'black or white' as you say. There are plenty pf GOP who favor gun control measures and plenty of Dems who are for pro gun rights..Not at 'civil war' stage quite yet, IMHO, of course.

[DT Guy]

Originally Posted by USNRet93

Just for info.


This when Obama and congress were democrat majority.

https://www.thoughtco.com/obama-gun-...ngress-3367595

I just don't think it's as 'black or white' as you say. There are plenty pf GOP who favor gun control measures and plenty of Dems who are for pro gun rights..Not at 'civil war' stage quite yet, IMHO, of course.

Well, there's one political party who has made it an official plank of their party's platform.
There is one party whose leadership continually calls for greater restrictions on firearms.
There is one party that, almost completely along party lines, has supported further restrictions on firearms.

So while you may not see it as 'black and white', it's far from grey. Perhaps a very, very dark grey versus a slightly off-white? Either way, arguing 'there is no difference' between the two major parties is simply fallacious.

Larry

[USNRet93]

Originally Posted by DT Guy

Well, there's one political party who has made it an official plank of their party's platform.
There is one party whose leadership continually calls for greater restrictions on firearms.
There is one party that, almost completely along party lines, has supported further restrictions on firearms.

So while you may not see it as 'black and white', it's far from grey. Perhaps a very, very dark grey versus a slightly off-white? Either way, arguing 'there is no difference' between the two major parties is simply fallacious.

Larry

Didn't say that, that there was 'no differences' between the parties. I said that the last time the Dems were in control of 2 of the 3 parts of US government, there were 2 pro gun rights measures passed. Granted, history is not a predictor of the future BUT

Take a look at the 2016 GOP official party platform and see if there is anything in it you 'may' disagree with.

Same for Dem 'party platform'. They are huge and are an exercise in typing more than anything else. VERY little in these platforms actually see the light of day as a 'law'..

BUT is GOP more 'gun rights' and Dems more 'gun control'..yes BUT Not a zero sum tho, not either/or..Not a civil war 'plank'..IMHO.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...urvey/1891191/

[Brownstone322]

When I started this topic many months ago ... wait, no, it was just four days ago ... I primarily wanted to know if others recognized that still others do not seem to understand that constitutional rights refer only to the authority of government. I think misunderstandings of that simple concept — regarding any constitutional right — represent profound ignorance in our society. That’s all I really had in mind (although it took a little setup to express).

Oh, and I also wanted to know what our esteemed panel thought might be probable sources for this basic disconnect. That’s it.

But, sure, I guess I knew where the thread might lead. I offer my thanks to those who stayed more or less around the topic. As for those now prepared to barricade themselves in their homes with 5,000 rounds of .223, I just dunno ...

[davidsog]

The most important thing we gained from Heller was the Supreme Court's recognition that the RKBA is an individual right, unconnected to military service. That puts a stake through the heart of the anti-gunners' claims that the 2A applies only to militia service, and that today the National Guard is the militia. (Hint: it isn't.)

Exactly and what my post was about!! I just dug up the Militia Laws and some examples of State Militia Law. To most of us it is pretty common sense, everyone was expected to be armed to defend themselves, their homes, towns, country, and yes...even against "tyranny". That was just an implicit duty of citizenship.

davidsog says:

So, any argument that the 2nd Amendment only applies to organized military forces or confined to sporting arms is simply not factual.

IMHO, An AR-15 or Military Style arm is not a by-product of the 2nd Amendment, it is central too and the implicit reason for that Amendment.

Heller didn't address a right to self defense outside of the home

The Heller ruling was very narrowly focused, by design and intent.

Yes. Unfortunately, you eat an Elephant one bite at a time.

The fact we were able to invalidate the entire "Militia" and "Service Connection" argument is a significant step forward on a long journey.

[davidsog]

I think gun control groups and leaders have made it clear that they are not interested in civil discourse. As for me, I'm fresh out of "compromises" on gun control.

Why do people think being civil means compromising?????????

[44 AMP]

That puts a stake through the heart of the anti-gunners' claims that the 2A applies only to militia service, and that today the National Guard is the militia. (Hint: it isn't.)

This got me to thinking (seldom a good thing) and if you look at just what was written, the 2nd Amendment DOES only apply to militia service. It very clearly states that the militia is necessary, and because of that the Govt shall not infringe the people's right to keep and bear arms.

The fallacy of the anti-gun argument about the right to keep and bear is thinking it ONLY applies to militia service. The 2nd Amendment explains one reason, and only one reason why the Government should not restrict our arms. There are other reasons. Personal reasons. Reasons described as "natural rights", not constitutional right.

Heller recognized this, that we have a right to arms APART from militia service. We would have this same right if there were no 2nd Amendment.

the second amendment is done then. It’s only intention is to defend against a tyrannical government, so if you can’t do that there’s no point in ownership of firearms.

That was THEIR argument. And so sayeth the politician who said the people can't win against the govt because the govt has nukes! Therefore, no point in fighting...

Again, defense against an out of control govt is only ONE reason to have arms. The soundbyte educated people,(and this does not depend on income, social class, or educational opportunities, it depends on personal choices) and their puppet masters (the ones who create the soundbytes) think and advocate that resistance to the govt is the ONLY reason to be armed, and since that is a laughable idea, here in the beginning of the 21st century, we don't NEED arms, and therefore, since THEY don't see a need, WE should not be ALLOWED to have them.

They rail endlessly about what an evil thing it is to profile people (pick your parameters, race, religion, style of dress, etc) and yet they seem incapable of recognizing (or perhaps just admitting) that is exactly what they are doing to gun owners.

As Reagan, and no doubt many others through history have said, "the problem with our opponents is not what they don't know, it is that so much of what they do know, is wrong!"

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by davidsog

Why do people think being civil means compromising?????????

Why do you think gun control groups want to talk to gun owners about anything other than these so-called "compromises?"

[davidsog]

Why would you talk to gun control groups? They have already made up their mind. Trying to picture in my mind some guy banging on the doors A.C.O.R.N. yelling "Come out and talk to me about Guns!!"

Does not pass the common sense test and really not going to get you anywhere.

Be smarter than that. Talk to your neighbors, co-workers,....people that vote. Bring it up in conversation and start a discussion. If presented with incivility respond with civil, rational, discourse and do not let emotion get the better of you.