The second amendment

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.

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?

I don't know what is considered "ordinary military equipment" by the USSC, but if it includes machine guns, RPGs, and cluster bombs then I reject the Court's opinion (although I doubt that's what they had in mind).

Chaplin wrote:

There are many cities and counties in this country where the criminal has a weapons advantage. Unless a criminal has restrictions placed on him/her, there is no law that says they can't own it.

But, of course, criminals don't respect the law, right?
I understand. That's exactly why it is necessary to restrict the manufacture, importation, and sale of such weapons and ammo that render the beat cop defenseless.

The court correctly points out that this passage from United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez is dicta (an opinion voiced by a judge that has only incidental bearing on the case in question and is therefore not binding) so it's not the law. The court also pointed out that whether the second amendment protects a collective or an individual right the important thing is it's still right that exists only in connection with a well regulated militia.

So can I legally start a milita?

I need greater specificity!
Here you go... I'll just ask a ridiculous question: Would you consider it within the bounds of the Constitution for my law abiding, next door neighbor to own and keep a functioning rocket launcher (and functioning rockets) in his backyard? (I am not trying to set you up.)

Atavistic wrote:

So can I legally start a milita?

No. But the government is constitutionally obligated to have one for you to join.

The government violates this obligation.

echi wrote:

I need greater specificity!
Here you go... I'll just ask a ridiculous question: Would you consider it within the bounds of the Constitution for my law abiding, next door neighbor to own and keep a functioning rocket launcher (and functioning rockets) in his backyard? (I am not trying to set you up.)

I presume you are asking if the Second Amendment would protect the right of militiamen to possess such weaponry at home.

I would say no. That is something a militiaman could be allowed to possess if Congress wanted them to, but I'd say it goes beyond the minimum that the Second Amendment guarantees for militiamen.

On the other hand, an automatic rifle with AP ammo is something that any militiaman would have the right to have.

The 2nd Amendment had 2 main purposes:

1 ) to allow the people to overthrow the government
( this concept is repeatedly argued in support of ratifying
the Constitutiion in the Federalist Papers )

2 ) to protect the right of each citizen
to personal defense from animals, street criminals or Indians.

Whereas the late King James II, by the assistance of divers evil counsellors, judges, and ministers employed by him, did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion and the laws and liberties of this kingdom by assuming and exercising a power of dispensing with and suspending of laws and the execution of laws without consent of parliament, by . . . raising and keeping a standing army within this kingdom in time of peace without consent of parliament and quartering soldiers contrary to law, by causing several good subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when papists were both armed and employed contrary to law . . .

. . . .

And thereupon the said lords spiritual and temporal and commons, pursuant to their respective letters and elections being now assembled in a full and free representative of this nation, taking into their most serious consideration the best means for attaining the ends aforesaid, do in the first place (as their ancestors in like case have usually done) for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties, declare that . . . that the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of parliament, is against law; that the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law . . .

http://www.constitution.org/sech/sech_120.htm

17. That the People have a Right to keep and to bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defence of a free State; that Standing Armies in Time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided as far as the Circumstances and Protection of the Community will admit; and that in all Cases, the military should be under strict Subordination to, and governed by the Civil Power.

http://www.constitution.org/gmason/amd_gmas.htm

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

http://www.constitution.org/bor/amd_jmad.htm

OmSigDAVID wrote:

The 2nd Amendment had 2 main purposes:

Yes.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

1 ) to allow the people to overthrow the government
( this concept is repeatedly argued in support of ratifying
the Constitutiion in the Federalist Papers )

2 ) to protect the right of each citizen
to personal defense from animals, street criminals or Indians.

Not exactly. The Second Amendment is descended from wording in the English Bill of Rights:

Quote:

Whereas the late King James II, by the assistance of divers evil counsellors, judges, and ministers employed by him, did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion and the laws and liberties of this kingdom by assuming and exercising a power of dispensing with and suspending of laws and the execution of laws without consent of parliament, by . . . raising and keeping a standing army within this kingdom in time of peace without consent of parliament and quartering soldiers contrary to law, by causing several good subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when papists were both armed and employed contrary to law . . .

. . . .

And thereupon the said lords spiritual and temporal and commons, pursuant to their respective letters and elections being now assembled in a full and free representative of this nation, taking into their most serious consideration the best means for attaining the ends aforesaid, do in the first place (as their ancestors in like case have usually done) for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties, declare that . . . that the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of parliament, is against law; that the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law . . .

http://www.constitution.org/sech/sech_120.htm

The line "that the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of parliament, is against law" is ancestral to the first half of the Second Amendment, and is meant to limit the King's power to raise armies.

The line "that the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law" is ancestral to the second half of the Second Amendment. It was concerned with ensuring that militiamen could always be properly armed.




When the Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment, they were more concerned with insisting that the government support the militia than with limiting the government's power to raise armies, so Mason added a section guaranteeing the militia, not just limiting the army:

Quote:

17. That the People have a Right to keep and to bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defence of a free State; that Standing Armies in Time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided as far as the Circumstances and Protection of the Community will admit; and that in all Cases, the military should be under strict Subordination to, and governed by the Civil Power.

http://www.constitution.org/gmason/amd_gmas.htm

And when Madison cut unnecessary language and combined various related amendments, he dropped the restriction on standing armies completely, leaving only the demand that the government support the militia, the demand that militiamen be properly armed, and a third proposal that was combined from another amendment (and was subsequently removed by Congress):

Quote:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

http://www.constitution.org/bor/amd_jmad.htm

So, what we are left with is a requirement that the government maintain the militia, and a requirement that the militia be properly armed.