The second amendment

Forums: Legal, Guns, Gun Control
Email this Topic • Print this Page

"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."

What exactly does this mean? I was always under the assumption that the second amendment guaranteed the right of citizens to own firearms. There seems to be an ongoing debate though about the interpretation of this amendment. Some say that this only guarantees the right of militias to bear firearms. I find this interpretation odd though. Doesn't it seem a bit redundant to say that a militia has the right to bear arms? Also, isn't the right to bear arms meant as a safeguard against the possible tyranny of government?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 4,942 • Replies: 90

No top replies

"...the right of the People..." is the important descriptor here - IMHO.

0 Replies

I believe that it means the American people have the right to EAT bear arms, but nowadays, they tend to prefer chicken wings.

0 Replies

Lord Ellpus, Actually, that would be "buffalo" wings. Wink

0 Replies

Really? Is this some sort of genetic modification thingy going on?

Bloody hell...imagine if one of THOSE crapped on your car!

0 Replies

I have spent some time consulting the Ellpuspedia, and find that the second amendment was the only part that was written by the Hunters and Trappers lobby, thereby reinforcing the view that it was in actual fact referring to the devouring of various furry animals, primarily the Ursos Arctos Linnaeus, which was specifically mentioned in the initial draft, but was dropped later as nobody knew how to spell it properly. It was simply referred to as "bear arms", which happened to be the most tasty joint on the poor creature.

0 Replies

Re: The second amendment

Atavistic wrote:

"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."

What exactly does this mean?

This seems to be an unresolved question of federal law, judging by the radically different answers recent appeals court decision have given to it. In United States v. Emerson (2001), the Court of Appeal for the 5th Circuit has endorsed the individual rights theory of the 2nd Amendment. In stark contrast, the 9th Court has endorsed a collective rights interpretation. Silveira v. Lockeyer (2002).

Threads about the 2nd Amendment tend to generate more heat than light here. So I'll just throw the two cases at you and let you read them.

0 Replies

Chaplin wrote:

"...the right of the People..." is the important descriptor here - IMHO.

Yes; very true.

The USSC has found this to be the case in the case of US v. VERDUGO (199O) 11O S.Ct. 1O56
(at P. 1O61) the US Supreme Court declares that:

"The Second Amendment protects
'the right of the people to keep
and bear arms'".

THE SUPREME COURT THEN PROCEEDS TO DEFINE "THE PEOPLE" AS BEING THE SAME PEOPLE
WHO CAN VOTE TO ELECT THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES EVERY SECOND YEAR.
(Notably, one need not join the National Guard in order to vote for his congressman.)
The Court further defined "the people" to mean those people who have
a right peaceably to assemble [1st Amendment] and those who have
the right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures [4th Amendment]
in their persons houses, papers and effects
(personal rights, not rights of states, as the authoritarian-collectivists allege of the 2nd Amendment).
THE COURT HELD THAT THE TERM "THE PEOPLE" MEANS THE SAME THING
EVERYWHERE THAT IT IS FOUND IN THE CONSTITUTION OF 1787, AND
EVERYWHERE THAT IT IS FOUND IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS.

In VERDUGO (supra), the Court indicated that the same people are protected
by the First, SECOND, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments;
i.e.THE PEOPLE who can speak n worship freely are THE PEOPLE who can keep and bear arms.

0 Replies

Re: The second amendment

Atavistic wrote:

"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."

What exactly does this mean?

It means that some things were put beyond the reach of government,
by the Founders of that government ( as a condition of its being brought into existence ).
These things include the right to possess guns,
( such as thay had just finished using to throw out the minions of the Hanover Dynasty )
and the right of armed citizens to associate with one another to address their security concerns,
if thay chose to do so
( as in fact, thay had DONE, during times of emergency ).

There were no police anywhere in the USA, nor in England,
until the following century, so every citizen had to be ready
to defend himself from criminals, Indians, or animals.

Quote:

I was always under the assumption that the second amendment guaranteed the right of citizens to own firearms. There seems to be an ongoing debate though about the interpretation of this amendment. Some say that this only guarantees the right of militias to bear firearms. I find this interpretation odd though. Doesn't it seem a bit redundant to say that a militia has the right to bear arms? Also, isn't the right to bear arms meant as a safeguard against the possible tyranny of government?

For dispassionate analysis of the amendment 's syntactical architecture,
let us consider the following analogy:

"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" US Constitution, 2nd Amendment

ANALOGY: A well educated electorate being necessary to the
security of a free state, the right of THE PEOPLE
to keep and read books shall not be infringed.

1. Does this say that ONLY voters have the right to read books?

2. Does this say "well educated" only by STATE GOVERNMENT colleges?

3. Does this say that ONLY voters who are professors of state run colleges
have the right to read books?

4. Does this say that if you miss an election,
it's ok for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Books
to knock down your door and steal your books?

If criminals are willing to ignore the laws against ROBBERY;
if criminals are willing to disregard the laws against MURDER,
HOW can we convince them to OBEY "gun control" laws?

0 Replies

Re: The second amendment

Thomas wrote:

Atavistic wrote:
"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."

What exactly does this mean?

This seems to be an unresolved question of federal law, judging by the radically different answers recent appeals court decision have given to it. In United States v. Emerson (2001), the Court of Appeal for the 5th Circuit has endorsed the individual rights theory of the 2nd Amendment. In stark contrast, the 9th Court has endorsed a collective rights interpretation. Silveira v. Lockeyer (2002).

Threads about the 2nd Amendment tend to generate more heat than light here. So I'll just throw the two cases at you and let you read them.

Thomas,
perhaps u 'd like to include this case,
( admittedly not from a Circuit Court of Appeals )
in your recommended reading list:

In PLANNED PARENTHOOD v. CASEY (1992) 112 S.Ct. 2791 (P. 28O5)
the US Supreme Court declares that:
"...by the express provisions
of the FIRST EIGHT amendments to the Constitution"
rights were "guaranteed to THE INDIVIDUAL ...
It is a promise of the Constitution
that there is a realm of personal liberty
which the government may not enter." [emphasis added]
The 2nd Amendment is within "the first eight amendments".

The Court also adopted the Harlan dissent in POE v. ULLMAN 367 US 497 that:
"...'liberty' is not a series of isolated points...
in terms of the taking of property;
the freedom of speech,
press and religion; the RIGHT TO KEEP and BEAR ARMS;
the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures....
It is a rational continuum which...includes a freedom from all arbitrary impositions ..."[emphasis added]
(Notice no reference to any state government militia.)

On the same page, the Supreme Court invokes the 9th Amendment
to curtail the powers of the states, thru the 14th Amendment.
Historically, the purpose of the 9th Amendment was to preserve, and
carry intact into perpetuity, those rights already freely enjoyed by
Americans and Englishmen as of the time of the American Revolution.

By virtue of the English Bill of Rights of 1689,
the long established right to keep and bear arms
was clearly recognized and protected,
with the 9th Amendment of the US Bill of Rights perpetuating the old
English rights in America.
The Supreme Court added that:
"All fundamental rights comprised within the term liberty
are protected by the federal Constitution
from invasion by the states." PARENTHOOD (supra)

In GIDEON v. WAINWRIGHT (1963) 372 US 335
the US Supreme Court held that:
"this Court has looked to the FUNDAMENTAL nature
of original Bill of Rights guarantees
to decide whether the Fourteenth Amendment makes
them obligatory on the States" [emphasis added]
hence, the 2nd Amendment forbids the states from controlling guns
if the right to guns for self-defense from violence of criminals or animals is "fundamental" not trivial.

In said PARENTHOOD case, speaking of the right to reproductive autonomy,
the US Supreme Court used the following language
(in pertinent part, from perspective of the right to self-defense):

"Our law affords constitutional protection
to PERSONAL DECISIONS. ... Our cases re-
cognize 'the right of the individual ...
to be free from unwarranted governmental
intrusion into matters ... fundamentally
affecting a person' .... These matters
involving the most intimate and PERSONAL
CHOICES a person may make in a lifetime,
choices central to PERSONAL DIGNITY and
AUTONOMY, are central to the liberty pro-
tected by the 14th Amendment." (P. 28O7)
[emphasis added]

Let us ANALOGIZE this reasoning to situations bearing upon the right to self-defense:
a garage in Brooklyn was raided by a criminal who was NOT SATISFIED
TO ROB its attendant, caused him to take a supine position, whereupon
he committed an indecent, unsanitary act all over him; criminals have
vented their sadism upon their victims, in grotesque and unseemly ways.
I submit, for your consideration, that THE QUESTION OF WHETHER TO PEACEFULLY SUBMIT
("better Red than dead"), to robbery or sexual violation (and/or to your own murder)
OR TO FORCEFULLY RESIST IS A
"personal decision ...fundamentally affecting a person..." bearing upon "...personal dignity and autonomy...."

The individual citizen literally wagers his life on his choice.

The use of large or colored fonts hereinabove
was done to elucidate and to facilitate the writing;
it was NOT shouting.

David

0 Replies

Thank you, David. You learned me somethin'. I kind of wish the second amendment said something else, but it clearly does not. So that's the way it is, I reckon. We all get to have guns!!! Oh, well.
In that case, I'll argue that the founders had no idea the amount of incredible resources that would one day be invested in the development of high-tech, assault weapons.
And therefore, I say that the Constitution gives the People the right to bear shotguns and dueling pistols, but not AK47s or anything else that was developed since the end of the 18th century.

0 Replies

echi wrote:

Thank you, David. You learned me somethin'. I kind of wish the second amendment said something else, but it clearly does not. So that's the way it is, I reckon. We all get to have guns!!!

Yeah; freedom is good.

Quote:

Oh, well.
In that case, I'll argue that the founders had no idea the amount of incredible resources that would one day be invested in the development of high-tech, assault weapons.

Yeah; I don 't think thay cared.
Thay had the ethos of the NRA or GOA.

Thay wanted the citizens to be able to overthrow
a despotic regime, shud that become necessary,
as it did for them. They also wanted citizens to be able to
defend themselves from criminals n predatory animals.

Quote:

And therefore, I say that the Constitution gives the People the right to bear shotguns and dueling pistols,
but not AK47s or anything else that was developed since the end of the 18th century.

Does that principle extend also
to the First Amendment ?

Do newspapers with hi speed electric printing presses
still have freedom of the press ?

Does freedom of speech extend to Hi Definition TV ?
Do we still have freedom to express our opinions, while riding in a jet plane ?

Do TV evangelists have First Amendment protection ?

As to the 8th Amendment,
do the citizens have protection from being poked
by the police with electric cattle prods ?

Do citizens still have the right to vote,
if electric voting machines r being used ?

What do u think ?

David

0 Replies

I think the issue is safety. Even those rights that are specified in the Constitution can be limited when public safety is jeopardized. You recognize this, yourself, I'm sure.
The Second Amendment is vague in its use of the word "arms". Where do you think the line should be drawn? Should automatic weapons be permitted? What about RPGs?

0 Replies

"Owning" something is not illegal if not restricted by existing laws. A vehicle can be used to kill many. It's how one uses it that is the issue; not the owning of it.

0 Replies

I know someone once that was almost killed by chicken wings.

Are you sure the second amendment isn't about food?

0 Replies

In that case, I think I'll run out and buy me a nuclear warhead (like I could afford one).

0 Replies

echi, If you can go out in the world marketplace and buy a real nuclear weapon with potential to kill millions - or at least hundreds of thousands, I'll buy you drinks for the rest of your life.

0 Replies

Damn right, you will.

0 Replies

You might try going to Niger to buy yellow cake, then work from there. Wink

0 Replies

Maybe, Saddam will sponser you.

0 Replies

The second amendment

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know