The 2nd Amendment - What does it mean?

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: asterix404 When the law was written the automatic weapon wasn't even a dream, the guns that were carried were single shot muskets that a good person could fire 3 rounds in 1 minute. Possibly a pistol that had the same restictions. Melitias were used becasue our standing army was fighting... like.. ya know... a war and coudln't be everywhere at the same time and it turned out to be local village men protecting themselves from an invading army. Also do I fail to mention that this is how they hunted food in woods. They used heuge very inaccurate guns to kill animals that would feed themselves.

First of all, I guess you all just conveniently forget the Wild West, and that entire part of our history. The entire populace was armed, AND drunk, and yet nearly everybody survived.


Sure there examples of notorious criminals hurting innocents, but statistically, I think we all know who won the battle of the West, the Good Guys. Why, armed non-criminals who did the right thing.

Quote by: asterix404 don't think that the creators of the Dec of Indp ever dreamed that even the tommy gun would have been created. That gun alone killed thousands of police officers and the people who bought them, if ya didn't know them, were no different then you or me. So let me ask all you gun people out there cuz this has been bothering me slightly... Guns around where I live are used to kill and hunt and eat dear and other game. Are 50 cal automatic weapons really used for this? Do you need a fully automatic m16 to kill a dear? Better yet how about an automatic shotgun, or a long distance sniper rifle with a heuge score... I mean... I could possibly see people wanting to own those kind of weapons if they fear an invasion, the last time the US was ever invaided was durring the spanish mexican war back in the 1800's and that was cuz we started it. Hell even durring the cold war we had an eminy that we could see, but now we don't... so whats the point of civilians owning heuge weapons or even wanting to? There are 50 cal handguns... why? A desert eagal, why? I stop at around a hand held 6 shot 33cal, that gun I could see as being used for personal defence but against who? People with guns?

I think you answered yourself there. Different people want those arms for different reasons. In this society, you are not protect from potential crimes, the law steps in after the crime (sometimes, if your lucky) was commited.


If the reverse were true,, nothing could exist, because your loud stereo "could" ddamage my hearing, your dog "could" bite (you can too) your car could be used as a weapon. The whole philosphy you put forth undermines the very concepts this nation was founded on, and that our elected officials are sworn to uphold, liberty, and justice for all. Not protection from "potential" criminals.

[G. Adams]

Actually it wasn't muskets they fought with, the springfield rifle was invented during the war of independence, so when the bill of rights was crafted they were well aware of long range, accurate (relatively) weapons.

[Lou Minotti]

This gun-worship is truly demented.

No one is "worshipping guns". Your worship of The State is what is truly demented. It goes against every example in history. Communism IS NOT cool.

[G. Adams]

Communists do not worship the state, fascists demand obediance to the state, communists demand it's eventual destruction. Stop using terms you don't understand, it does my head in!!

[Lou Minotti]

Or maybe it's you that doesn't understand....Communist, Fascists....same thing: Command and control freaks. And your definition of communism is WAY over most self-proclaimed "commies" heads. So please, I get your point, you're just missing mine....(you really think a communist system can operate without the hands of the State? Doubt it....)

[Cephus]

Quote by: DoloresIbarruri I have a friend (a doctor) who lives in Canada, in a relatively dense area, and leaves his door unlocked. I've grown so accustomed to the U.S., where one has to lock everything up, that nowadays just thinking of leaving a door open makes me edgy.

I don't know, we almost never lock our back door and have never felt a need to. About the only time we do is when we go on vacation, and even then we often leave the garage unlocked and have never had a problem.

[Morgan_Freeman]

I'm resurrecting this thread. The argument up to this point has basically been Sonart claiming that the meaning of the Constitution is whatever the US Supreme Court says it is. Which is plainly ridiculous. SOCUS clearly has the privilege of finding their own meaning in the Constitution and forcing us to live with it. That hardly alters the original meaning of the document, which rests firmly in the words themselves and the minds of those who wrote them.

If you are of the opinion that the Constitution literally has no meaning until the Supreme court decides it, much like Schrodinger's Cat, then you are basically declaring the entire thing meaningless, and you have nothing to contribute to this discussion.

The question here is not what SOCUS has said, it's what the framers had in mind when they wrote the thing.

Let's start with a basic linguistic analysis. This part has already been done for me by one of the nation's leading experts on the English Language, Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at the University of Southern California and the author of "American Usage and Style: The Consensus. You can read his full testimony here:
Literary Analysis

Some highlights:

[Schulman:] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' null and void?" [Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence." [Schulman:] "(4) Does the clause 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,' grant a right to the government to place conditions on the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms,' or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?" [Copperud:] "(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia."

So the strict meaning of the words themselves is pretty clear. But oh, maybe the writers of the Constitution slipped up and wrote something they didn't mean to? Let's ask them:

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
-Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
-Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950).

"To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them..."
-Richard Henry Lee writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic (1787-1788).

"Last Monday, a string of amendments were presented to the lower House; these altogether respected personal liberty…"
-Senator William Grayson to Patrick Henry, regarding the Bill of Rights

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
-Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8.

"The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."
-Samuel Adams, debates & Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87.

"Arms in the hands of citizens (may) be used at individual discretion...in private self defense..."
-John Adams, A defense of the Constitutions of the Government of the USA, 471 (1788).

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
-George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426.

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms."
-Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169.

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them."
-Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elliot, Debates at 646.

"(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
-James Madison.

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States."
-Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the federal Constitution (1787) in Pamphlets to the Constitution of the United States (P. Ford, 1888).

Hmmm... well gee, it seems they sure meant what they said. Which of course, those of us who aren't being horribly intellectual dishonest already knew. Why the hell would they include an amendment among the "Bill of Rights" that isn't a right at all? The answer is simple: they didn't. They included an amendment that guarantees an individual right to own and train with firearms.

[Kite]

Some people have been asserting that the amendment is 'obsolete' or 'out of date'. I halfway agree with this, in the respect that the founding fathers may have thought twice about putting modifiers in the amendment if they had anything other than ball and powder muskets. For example, if you were to send a few squadrons of todays marines back in time to fight the revolution, they could very well take out most of the British army simply due to the fact that they have fully automatic, more accurate, and more powerful firearms, as well as protection against firearms. Therefore I do agree with some regulation of fully automatic assault weapons to the mass populace, however I don't feel that any kind of gun should be banned outright.
Personally, I don't see whats wrong with the status quo, you cant buy or sell automatic weapons but you can buy sell or own handguns, shotguns, bolt-action/hunting rifles and semi-automatic carbines. Owning an HK-USP for home defense is sensible and reasonable, however, owning a formerly aircraft-mounted vulcan cannon for 'varmint hunting' seems like its unnecessary, even though its very cool.

[Fangrim]

Morgan_Freeman,

I completely disagree.

Regardless of whether the Amendment uses the first clause ("A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State") as a prerequisite for application of the second ("the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."), we find that together they still clearly indicate that the Amendment applies strictly for the purpose of maintaining militias by looking to the framer's history, the actual amendment's history.

Quote by: D. Yassky, Michigan Law Review The clearest evidence of the framers' understanding of the language is in the original draft of the Amendment proposed in the First Congress by James Madison: "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 [emphasis added].""' In the last clause of this version (the conscientious objector provision), Madison clearly used the phrase "bearing arms" to refer solely to the possession of weapons for military use. There is no reason to think that virtually the same phrase - "bear arms" -should have a different, much broader meaning elsewhere in the very same sentence.

"The right to keep and bear arms" is clearly military in meaning, removing all doubt that the amendment is strictly focused on militias.

Further evidence:

Madison's use of the phrase "bear arms" to refer to military activities is echoed in other contemporary usages. Thus the Declaration of Independence charged King George with forcing captive Americans to "bear arms against their country."'18 Searching a Library of Congress database containing all official records of debates in the Continental and U.S. Congresses between 1774 and 1821 reveals thirty uses of the phrase "bear arms" or "bearing arms" (other than in discussing the proposed Second Amendment); in every single one of these uses, the phrase has an unambiguously military meaning."' The Continental Congress, for example, approved a prisoner exchange with the British conditioned on the returned prisoners being forbidden to "bear arms" for a specified period,I2O and the Twelfth Congress debated legislation concerning prisoners taken "whilst voluntarily bearing arms in the service of Great Britain."'"

These usages were standard of the time.

There is no Constitutionally protected individual right to bear arms unless within the context of organized militias.


-----------

As to your post, we can see that my use of the first draft of the Second Amendment trumps your Founding Father sources. That individual men of the time had specific views of the right to bear arms has no necessary bearing on whether the Constitution conveys that meaning. We see from the draft of the Amendment, however, a clear sense of military meaning, and not individual self-defense.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Morgan Freeman [Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia.

Copperud is nuts. That's EXACTLY the condition that was stated outright. "A well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state..."

Quote by: Morgan Freeman [Copperud:] "(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia."

I have no idea what Copperud means with this double-talk. It's an unconditional right (anyone can own any arms they choose) and they just sorta threw in the "militia clause" for... what... the hell of it?

So the strict meaning of the words themselves is pretty clear. But oh, maybe the writers of the Constitution slipped up and wrote something they didn't mean to? Let's ask them:

I see you and Roxdog are adept at cutting & pasting from the same site. And he calls me a slave to the anti-gun lobby?

.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Morgan Freeman That hardly alters the original meaning of the document, which rests firmly in the words themselves and the minds of those who wrote them.

Indeed. And what did those words say? See for yourself.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

"1. The Text and Structure of the Second Amendment Demonstrate that the Amendment's Purpose is to Preserve Effective State Militias; That Purpose Helps Shape the Content of the Amendment.

The Second Amendment states in its entirety: "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." U.S. CONST. amend. II. As commentators on all sides of the debate regarding the amendment's meaning have acknowledged, the language of the amendment alone does not conclusively resolve the question of its scope. . . . What renders the language and structure of the amendment particularly striking is the existence of a prefatory clause, a syntactical device that is absent from all other provisions of the Constitution, including the nine other provisions of the Bill of Rights. Our analysis thus must address not only the meaning of each of the two clauses of the amendment but the unique relationship that exists between them.

a. The Meaning of the Amendment's First Clause: "A Well-Regulated Militia Being Necessary to the Security of A Free State."

The first or prefatory clause of the Second Amendment sets forth the amendment's purpose and intent. An important aspect of ascertaining that purpose and intent is determining the import of the term "militia." Many advocates of the traditional individual rights model, including the Fifth Circuit, have taken the position that the term "militia" was meant to refer to all citizens, and, therefore, that the first clause simply restates the second in more specific terms. . . . We agree with the Fifth Circuit in a very limited respect. We agree that the interpretation of the first clause and the extent to which that clause shapes the content of the second depends in large part on the meaning of the term "militia." If militia refers, as the Fifth Circuit suggests, to all persons in a state, rather than to the state military entity, the first clause would have one meaning -- a meaning that would support the concept of traditional individual rights. If the term refers instead, as we believe, to the entity [*37] ordinarily identified by that designation, the state-created and -organized military force, it would likely be necessary to attribute a considerably different meaning to the first clause of the Second Amendment and ultimately to the amendment as a whole.

We believe the answer to the definitional question is the one that most persons would expect: "militia" refers to a state military force. We reach our conclusion not only because that is the ordinary meaning of the word, but because contemporaneously enacted provisions of the Constitution that contain the word "militia" consistently use the term to refer to a state military entity, not to the people of the state as a whole. We look to such contemporaneously enacted provisions for an understanding of words used in the Second Amendment in part because this is an interpretive principle recently explicated by the Supreme Court in a case involving another word that appears in that amendment -- the word "people." That same interpretive principle is unquestionably applicable when we construe the word "militia."

"Militia" appears repeatedly in the first and second Articles of the Constitution. From its use in those sections, it is apparent that the drafters were referring in the Constitution to the second of two government-established and -controlled military forces. Those forces were, first, the national army and navy, which were subject to civilian control shared by the president and Congress, and, second, the state militias, which were to be "essentially organized and under control of the states, but subject to regulation by Congress and to 'federalization' at the command of the president." Paul Finkelman, "A Well Regulated Militia": The Second Amendment in Historical Perspective, 76 CHI.-KENT L. REV. 195, 204 (2000).


b. The Meaning of the Amendment's Second Clause: "The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, Shall Not Be Infringed."

Having determined that the [*46] first clause of the Second Amendment declares the importance of state militias to the proper functioning of the new constitutional system, we now turn to the meaning of the second clause, the effect the first clause has on the second, and the meaning of the amendment as a whole. The second clause -- "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" -- is not free from ambiguity. We consider it highly significant, however, that the second clause does not purport to protect the right to "possess" or "own" arms, but rather to "keep and bear" arms. This choice of words is important because the phrase "bear arms" is a phrase that customarily relates to a military function.

Historical research shows that the use of the term "bear arms" generally referred to the carrying of arms in military service -- not the private use of arms for personal purposes. For instance, Professor Dorf, after canvassing documents from the founding era, concluded that "overwhelmingly, the term had a military connotation." Dorf, supra, at 314. Our own review of historical documents confirms the professor's report. . . .


c. The Relationship Between the Two Clauses.

Our next step is to consider the relationship between the two clauses, and the meaning of the amendment as a whole. As we have noted, and as is evident from the structure of the Second Amendment, the first clause explains the purpose of the more substantive clause that follows, or, to put it differently, it explains the reason necessitating or warranting the enactment of the substantive provision. Moreover, in this case, the first clause does more than simply state the amendment's purpose or justification: it also helps shape and define the meaning of the substantive provision contained in the second clause, and thus of the amendment itself. . . .

When the second clause is read in light of the first, so as to implement the policy set [*55] forth in the preamble, we believe that the most plausible construction of the Second Amendment is that it seeks to ensure the existence of effective state militias in which the people may exercise their right to bear arms, and forbids the federal government to interfere with such exercise. This conclusion is based in part on the premise, explicitly set forth in the text of the amendment, that the maintenance of effective state militias is essential to the preservation of a free State, and in part on the historical meaning of the right that the operative clause protects -- the right to bear arms. In contrast, it seems reasonably clear that any fair reading of the "bear Arms" clause with the end in view of "assuring . . . the effectiveness of" the state militias cannot lead to the conclusion that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to own or possess weapons for personal and other purposes. . . .

In the end, however, given the history and vigor of the dispute over the meaning of the Second Amendment's language, we would be reluctant to say that the text and structure alone establish with certainty which of the various views is correct. Fortunately, we have available a number of other important sources that can help us determine whether ours is the proper understanding. These include records that reflect the historical context in which the amendment was adopted, and documents that contain significant portions of the contemporary debates relating to the adoption and ratification of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. . . .

In sum, our review of the historical record regarding the enactment of the Second Amendment reveals that the amendment was adopted to ensure that effective state militias would be maintained, thus preserving the people's right to bear arms. The militias, in turn, were viewed as critical to preserving the integrity of the states within the newly structured national government as well as to ensuring the freedom of the people from federal tyranny. Properly read, the historical record relating to the Second Amendment leaves little doubt as to its intended scope and effect.

3. Text, History, and Precedent All Support the Collective Rights View of the Amendment.


After conducting our analysis of the meaning of the words employed in the amendment's two clauses, and the effect of their relationship to each other, we concluded that the language and structure of the amendment strongly support the collective rights view. The preamble establishes that the amendment's purpose was to ensure the maintenance of effective state militias, and the amendment's operative clause establishes that this objective was to be attained by preserving the right of the people to "bear arms" -- to carry weapons in conjunction with their service in the militia. . . ."

9th Circuit Court of Appeals - Silviera v. Lockyer, Dec. 2002

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Fangrim Morgan_Freeman, I completely disagree. Regardless of whether the Amendment uses the first clause ("A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State") as a prerequisite for application of the second ("the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."), we find that together they still clearly indicate that the Amendment applies strictly for the purpose of maintaining militias by looking to the framer's history, the actual amendment's history. "The right to keep and bear arms" is clearly military in meaning, removing all doubt that the amendment is strictly focused on militias. These usages were standard of the time. There is no Constitutionally protected individual right to bear arms unless within the context of organized militias. ----------- As to your post, we can see that my use of the first draft of the Second Amendment trumps your Founding Father sources. That individual men of the time had specific views of the right to bear arms has no necessary bearing on whether the Constitution conveys that meaning. We see from the draft of the Amendment, however, a clear sense of military meaning, and not individual self-defense.

It appears one needs to consider the root of the word "militia", before condemning the concept that...

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." -Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169.

So we can easily argue that the language you cite refers only to the concept of conscientious objectors, who choose not to take up arms in defense of the cause.


In other words, there is no consription in the Militia, and thus allowances had to be made in the language for those who chose not to take up arms, and fight for their freedom.

[Fangrim]

No conscription in the militia!?

Quote by: Military Act of 1792 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, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved.

Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

Even if there were no conscription in the militia, your post still doesn't refute my analysis of the language of the Second Amendment. It's clear that the explicitly military use of the phrase "bear arms" in the conscientious objector provision necessitates that another instance of the same phrase within the same sentence also have that strictly military meaning, indicating that there is no right to bear arms protected outside the militia.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Morgan Freeman "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." -Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169.

Unfortunately, Farmer Lee didn't write the Constitution...

"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;" -- Article I, Section 8: clause 13

And those who did realized that actually forming a well-regulated militia entailed more than just dreamy concepts of "all men capable of bearing arms"

"But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia."

By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it." -- Alexander Hamilton, the Federalist Papers

.

[johnwk]

All this talk about the word “Militia” as it appears in the 2nd amendment of our federal Bill of Rights, and the countless interpretations and opinions concerning that amendment and the word “militia“, misses the primary object for which the 2nd amendment, along with 11 other amendments, were sent to the various states for their ratification.

The simple truth is, after creating our federal Constitution which became effective in 1789, ten amendments were quickly adopted in 1791 which were intentionally designed “to prevent misconstruction or abuse of “ the new government’s “powers“, and is so stated in the Resolution of the First Congress Submitting Twelve Amendments to the Constitution; March 4, 1789


Whatever the reason for each State’s ratification of the 2nd Amendment, whether it be for the people’s right to keep and bear arms or to maintain a state militia, or even merely to preserve the individual’s inalienable right to self defense is unimportant when one considers the irrefutable object for the adoption of the 2nd Amendment which was to further restrict the newly created government, prevent misconstruction of the Constitution of the United States, and prevent specific abuses by the hand of the federal government:

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added .

In regard to fundamental rights and protections of these rights within the various states, let us take a look at what the people, for example, of the State of Pennsylvania agreed upon well before our federal government was created, and did so in their State’s fundamental law otherwise known as Pennsylvania’s Declaration of Rights, adopted in 1776.

Section 7. Freedom of Press and Speech; Libels The printing press shall be free to every person who may undertake to examine the proceeding of the Legislature or any branch of government, and no law shall ever be made to restrain the right thereof. The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the invaluable rights of man, and every citizen may freely speak, write and print on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty. No conviction shall be had in any prosecution for the publication of papers relating to the official conduct of officers or men in public capacity, or to any other matter proper for public investigation or information, where the fact that such publication was not maliciously or negligently made shall be established to the satisfaction of the jury; and in all indictments for libels the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts, under the direction of the court, as in other cases. Section 3. Religious Freedom All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences; no man can of right be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship or to maintain any ministry against his consent; no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience, and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious establishments or modes of worship Section 1 . Inherent Rights of Mankind All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation, and of pursuing their own happiness. Section 21 . Right to Bear Arms The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

So, as it turns out with respect to Pennsylvania, documented history tells us the people therein decided to protect themselves from specific abuses exercised by state government power, and, by the adoption of the 2nd Amendment they went on to specifically forbid the federal government to “infringe” upon the people’s already established right in the State of Pennsylvania “to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State”.


JWK


" I believe that there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." ___ Madison Elliot`s Debates, vol. III, page 87

[NDOC]

Quote by: The Dunedan In answer to your original question, the Second Amendment could be translated into modern English thussly; A Militia in good order, being the best gaurantee of the continued existance of a Free State, the absolute right of The People to posess and carry weapons suitable for use in a military capacity shall not be infringed.

That's a bunch of bull#$%^&

[Fangrim]

Quote by: johnwk So, as it turns out with respect to Pennsylvania, documented history tells us the people therein decided to protect themselves from specific abuses exercised by state government power, and, by the adoption of the 2nd Amendment they went on to specifically forbid the federal government to “infringe” upon the people’s already established right in the State of Pennsylvania “to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State”.

You are correct that the initial Bill of Rights was created to limit and clarify the powers of and prevent infringements by the federal government.

The rights so enumerated in these clarifications, limitations, and preventions, however, can be and often are different such rights in state constitutions. The entire purpose of limiting the power of the federal government was so that the states could largely control themselves, befitting their own ideas of proper state government.

That Pennsylvania found it appropriate to enumerate an individual right to bear arms is entirely separate from and irrelevant to whether such an individual right is enumerated in the Constitution of the United States.

[johnwk]

Quote by: Fangrim That Pennsylvania found it appropriate to enumerate an individual right to bear arms is entirely separate from and irrelevant to whether such an individual right is enumerated in the Constitution of the United States.

As to what is enumerated in the Constitution of the United States with respect to the right to keep and bear arms we turn to the 2nd Amendment which was designed and ratified by the states “to prevent misconstruction or abuse of “ the new government’s “powers“ ___ precluding the new government from “infringing” upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms within the various state borders and preserve federalism, our Constitution’s plan.

Keep in mind what Madison states regarding the adoption of the first ten amendments and federalism:

“It cannot be a secret to the gentlemen in this House, that, notwithstanding the ratification of this system of Government by eleven of the thirteen United States, in some cases unanimously, in others by large majorities; yet still there is a great number of our constituents who are dissatisfied with it; among whom are many respectable for their talents and patriotism, and respectable for the jealousy they have for their liberty, which, though mistaken in its object, is laudable in its motive. There is a great body of the people falling under this description, who at present feel much inclined to join their support to the cause of Federalism” ___See :Madison, June 8th, 1789, Amendments to the Constitution

And so, the primary thing in this conversation which is irrelevant is, the bickering over the word militia as it appears in the 2nd Amendment ___ an amendment adopted with the intention "to prevent misconstruction or abuse of" a new government's "powers", precluding the federal government from infringing upon the reserved rights of the people of the various states with respect to their militias and the people's right to keep and bear arms.

BTW, I would say the law being questioned in the SC is un-constitutional for a reason which has nothing to do with guns.

The gun law in question was not enacted by Congress. Under our Constitution Congress, and only Congress, has been granted power:

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--

Congress has un-constitutionally delegated its power to legislate in all Cases whatsoever within the district of Columbia to the Council of the District of Columbia, created by Congress under the Home Rule Act of 1973. But the Council of the District of Columbia has not been elected by the people of the United States respectively as commanded by our Constitution, and thus, the gun law in question has not been enacted by agents authorized to legislate under our Constitution. Those authorized to legislate in the district of Columbia are explicitly to be elected by the people of the united States respectively.



JWK


"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?" Justice Story

[Fangrim]

Quote by: johnwk BTW, I would say the law being questioned in the SC is un-constitutional for a reason which has nothing to do with guns. The gun law in question was not enacted by Congress. Under our Constitution Congress, and only Congress, has been granted power: Congress has un-constitutionally delegated its power to legislate in all Cases whatsoever within the district of Columbia to the Council of the District of Columbia, created by Congress under the Home Rule Act of 1973. But the Council of the District of Columbia has not been elected by the people of the United States respectively as commanded by our Constitution, and thus, the gun law in question has not been enacted by agents authorized to legislate under our Constitution. Those authorized to legislate in the district of Columbia are explicitly to be elected by the people of the united States respectively.

I love this argument!

Excellent.