The 2nd Amendment - What does it mean?

[tinybear]

Folks, do you think someone would be lying in a morgue now if instead of a pepper spray a gun was used?

Police: Infant Doused With Pepper Spray


PONDERAY, Idaho (AP) - A woman doused a 2-month-old girl with pepper spray while feuding with the infant's family in a Wal-Mart, police said.

Lorlie M. Gantenbein, 36, of Sagle, was charged Tuesday with felony injury to a child. She was released on $5,000 bail.

The 2-month-old girl was recovering at home after being sprayed Monday, police Chief Mike Hutter said. The infant was treated at a hospital.

Full Story: http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news/...=20050404MR101

Hey, I didn't know you could buy pepper sprays over the counter. Where can I get one?

[Lou Minotti]

Hey, I didn't know you could buy pepper sprays over the counter.

Even better...you can make it in your kitchen for practically nothing...

Why did you post this here? What does this have anything to do with the thread? I think this belongs next to your "American Idol" post....

[Asian-American]

I would be a little concerned about living in a country where only the military and police can own guns. If you look at Western history, it has always been a battle between the elites and the general population. The elites often will harm the general population for their own gains. This belief was the reason the creators of the American Constitution created the Second Amendment: so that if very corrupt elites controlled the government and started to greatly harm the general population, the voters would be able to defend themselves.

General rule: always be skeptical about your elites, because there is not enough innate unity between humans were the elites have adequate altruistic desires for the majority people.

[tinybear]

I agree that altruism is rare. But times have changed. Nowadays the rich elite screw the poor in ways which are perfectly legal so the rich get richer and the poor gets poorer and there's no legitimate reason for those who get screwed to use their weapons. I reiterate what I said earlier: it's a myth that private citizens can use their firearms to combat tyranny. In this day and age, you won't even get the chance and even if you do, it's futile.

[Sonart]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Why don't you try addressing the question raised? This is the real issue at hand. If as you claim, gun ownership is indeed a privilege, then why does the Bill of Rights use the word right in place of privilege?

I have addressed the question, Milton. You simply don't like the answer. You have the RIGHT to bear arms >PROVIDED THAT< it is necessary for the maintenance of a well-regulated militia, as defined by the Constitution.

This reminds me of a similar debate I had on another board. A poster pointed out that according to Professor of English Joe Blow of Big League U., the language of the 2nd Amendment means what gun proliferation advocates want to believe it means. I responded that that was very nice, but Professors of English don't get to decide that, unless their title also includes 'Supreme Court Justice'. We went back and forth for about a dozen posts saying the same things over and over, with my opponent becoming increasingly livid. "He's the head of the English department, fer gawd's sake." ----> "I don't care if he wrote the Oxford English Dictionary, the Court is the only authority that determines what the Constitution does or doesn't say."

Article III. Section 1 -- The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

Article III. Section 2. Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;...

So, until such time as the gun lobby decides to put their money where their mouth is and actually challenges - and overturns - a gun control law as a violation of the 2nd Amendment, the Amendment means exactly what the highest Courts of the land have said it means for the last 65 years.

And if you insist on debating what this word or that one means, my answer will be exactly the same.

Quote by: Lou Minotti Like the yet unchallenged legitamacy of the Bush admin? For the tenth time: some UN loving judges doesn't impress me.

I personally have never once challenged the legitimacy of the Bush administration... just their policy. The Court ruled on the election and I accepted it. As to what does or doesn't impress you, I could give a rip. As I pointed out above, the Constitution says that the Courts determine what the Constitution says, not you.


.

[tinybear]

The situation will be quite chaotic if all private citizens can interpret the US Constitution in a way they think is right. The US Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the Constitution means and we all have to accept its interpretation whether we agree with it or not. That's what the rule of law is about.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: tinybear The situation will be quite chaotic if all private citizens can interpret the US Constitution in a way they think is right. The US Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the Constitution means and we all have to accept its interpretation whether we agree with it or not. That's what the rule of law is about.

The Supreme Court has to follow the original intent of the constitution though. They cannot just rule as they see fit. Yes, I realize they often do, but the constitution is clear that the framers intent was to followed reguardless of date, or affiliation. That is why all public servants are required to swear an oath to protect the constitution from all enemies, foreign, AND domestic.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Sonart I have addressed the question, Milton. You simply don't like the answer. You have the RIGHT to bear arms >PROVIDED THAT< it is necessary for the maintenance of a well-regulated militia, as defined by the Constitution. This reminds me of a similar debate I had on another board. A poster pointed out that according to Professor of English Joe Blow of Big League U., the language of the 2nd Amendment means what gun proliferation advocates want to believe it means. I responded that that was very nice, but Professors of English don't get to decide that, unless their title also includes 'Supreme Court Justice'. We went back and forth for about a dozen posts saying the same things over and over, with my opponent becoming increasingly livid. "He's the head of the English department, fer gawd's sake." ----> "I don't care if he wrote the Oxford English Dictionary, the Court is the only authority that determines what the Constitution does or doesn't say." Article III. Section 1 -- The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. Article III. Section 2. Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;... So, until such time as the gun lobby decides to put their money where their mouth is and actually challenges - and overturns - a gun control law as a violation of the 2nd Amendment, the Amendment means exactly what the highest Courts of the land have said it means for the last 65 years. And if you insist on debating what this word or that one means, my answer will be exactly the same. I personally have never once challenged the legitimacy of the Bush administration... just their policy. The Court ruled on the election and I accepted it. As to what does or doesn't impress you, I could give a rip. As I pointed out above, the Constitution says that the Courts determine what the Constitution says, not you..

...and to you, the answer is the same as for Tinybear. The Judges ruling MUST be consistent with the framers intent. Otherwise it is yet another unconstitutional law foisted upon the masses without their consent.


I hope your are not of the beliefe that our National Guard is our "well regulated militia".

[Osborn F Enready]

Here comes Sonart again, with his tired interpretation argument that has been beaten down time and again.

[Lou Minotti]

As I pointed out above, the Constitution says that the Courts determine what the Constitution says, not you.

Right, and it also says (not in these words exactly) the when the system becomes corrupt and Marxist judges become activists, the people have the right to tell them (and their cheerleaders) where to stick it....

[Sonart]

Quote by: Milton Bradley ...and to you, the answer is the same as for Tinybear. The Judges ruling MUST be consistent with the framers intent.

Have you read United States v. Miller? They do just that.

--"THE CONSTITUTION AS ORIGINALLY ADOPTED GRANTED TO THE CONGRESS POWER "TO PROVIDE FOR CALLING FORTH THE MILITIA TO EXECUTE THE LAWS OF THE UNION, SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS AND REPEL INVASIONS; 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." WITH OBVIOUS PURPOSE TO ASSURE THE CONTINUATION AND RENDER POSSIBLE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF SUCH FORCES THE DECLARATION AND GUARANTEE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT WERE MADE. IT MUST BE INTERPRETED AND APPLIED WITH THAT END IN VIEW."--

It continues on at some length...

How about Silveira v. Lockyer?

--"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."--

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Here comes Sonart again, with his tired interpretation argument that has been beaten down time and again.

Really? Beaten down with what? You have more English professors to throw at me? More hollow, plaintive whines that "The Supreme Court has to follow the original intent of the constitution"? Is or is not Miller the current High Court precedent on the rights guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment? Has or has not that ruling remained unchallenged in the Court for the last 65 years? Have or have not 10 of the 11 Circuit Courts (the exception being the 5th Circuit Court out of Texas :rolleyes: there's a surprise) affirmed Miller?

As Justice William O. Douglas and Thurgood Marshall wrote...

--"is an acute one not because of the Fourth Amendment, but because of the ease with which anyone can acquire a pistol. A powerful lobby dins into the ears of our citizenry that these gun purchases are constitutional rights protected by the Second Amendment . . . . There is under our decisions no reason why stiff state laws governing the purchase and possession of pistols may not be enacted. There is no reason why pistols may not be barred from anyone with a police record. There is no reason why a State may not require a purchaser of a pistol to pass a psychiatric test. There is no reason why all pistols should not be barred to everyone except the police."--

Quote by: Lou Minotti Right, and it also says (not in these words exactly) the when the system becomes corrupt and Marxist judges become activists, the people have the right to tell them (and their cheerleaders) where to stick it....

Oooh, nice whine, Lou. Ya sure told me!

.

[tinybear]

Who's to say the Supreme Court's interpretation is wrong? Not you or me, but an Act of Congress. There are rules guys. If you want to be part of this community, the rules gotta be obeyed.

[Lou Minotti]

I don't have to follow the rules of tyrants and Marxists. Read the Constitution.

[tinybear]

Please refer me to the Article and Section in the US Constitution which says that any private citizen can refuse to obey a law duly enacted by Congress or any ruling laid down by the Supreme Court because he is of the view that it's Marxist or tyrannical.

[Sonart]

Quote by: Lou Minotti Right, and it also says (not in these words exactly) the when the system becomes corrupt and Marxist judges become activists, the people have the right to tell them (and their cheerleaders) where to stick it....

By all means, Lou, have at it. Go grab your gun and tell the courts and the government where to stick it. :)


.

[Osborn F Enready]

Sonart said:
Really? Beaten down with what? You have more English professors to throw at me? More hollow, plaintive whines that "The Supreme Court has to follow the original intent of the constitution"? Is or is not Miller the current High Court precedent on the rights guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment? Has or has not that ruling remained unchallenged in the Court for the last 65 years? Have or have not 10 of the 11 Circuit Courts (the exception being the 5th Circuit Court out of Texas there's a surprise) affirmed Miller?

I say:
Sonart, in case you haven't noticed, each state also has a constitution, which was designed to be in FULL ALIGNMENT with the Federal Constitution.

Check this site for individual state rights.
http://www.saf.org/default.asp?p=rkba_protections
http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~volokh/2amteach/sources.htm

Check this site for actual rights under the 2nd amendment.
http://www.saf.org/default.asp?p=gunrights_faq

And reference this, about your tired U.S. vs Miller case.
http://i2i.org/SuptDocs/Crime/35.htm
http://www.tsra.com/Emerson.htm
http://www.gunnewsdaily.com/Lolli/wl38.html

It is difficult to interpret Miller as rendering the Second Amendment meaningless as a control on Congress. Ironically, one can read Miller as supporting some of the most extreme anti-gun control arguments; for example, that the individual citizen has a right to keep and bear 2 "Our most recent treatment of the Second Amendment occurred in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), in which we reversed the District Court's invalidation of the National Firearms Act, enacted in 1934. In Miller, we determined that the Second Amendment did not guarantee a citizen's right to possess a sawed-off shotgun because that weapon had not been shown to be 'ordinary military equipment' that could 'contribute to the common defense.' Id., at 178. The Court did not, however, attempt to define, or otherwise construe, the substantive right protected by the Second Amendment." "Marshaling an impressive array of historical evidence, a growing body of scholarly commentary indicates that the 'right to keep and bear arms' is, as the Amendment's text suggests, a personal right. See, e.g., J. Malcolm, To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right 162 22 bazookas, rocket launchers, and other armaments that are clearly used for modern warfare, including, of course, assault weapons. Under Miller, arguments about the constitutional legitimacy of a prohibition by Congress of private ownership of handguns or, what is much more likely, assault rifles, thus might turn on the usefulness of such guns in military settings. Sanford Levinson, The Embarrassing Second Amendment, 99 YALE L.J. 637, 654-55 (1989).

Miller did not answer the crucial question of whether the Second Amendment embodies an individual or collective right to bear arms. Although its holding has been used to justify many previous lower federal court rulings circumscribing Second Amendment rights, the Court in Miller simply chose a very narrow way to rule on the issue of gun possession under the Second Amendment, and left for another day further questions of Second Amendment construction. See Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 937-38 & n.1, 2 (1997) (Thomas, J., concurring).


This Court has not had recent occasion to consider the nature of the substantive right safeguarded by the Second Amendment.2 If, however, the Second Amendment is read to confer a personal right to "keep and bear arms," a colorable argument exists that the Federal Government's regulatory scheme, at least as it pertains to the purely intrastate sale or possession of firearms, runs afoul of that Amendment's protections.3

[Lou Minotti]

Go grab your gun and tell the courts and the government where to stick it.

Why would I do something like that? I know you have some strange notion that guns possess whoever touches them, but I hate to break it to you....it's just steel and lead. No evil spirits or demonic possession, I promise.

[Osborn F Enready]

Tinybear said:
Please refer me to the Article and Section in the US Constitution which says that any private citizen can refuse to obey a law duly enacted by Congress or any ruling laid down by the Supreme Court because he is of the view that it's Marxist or tyrannical.

I say:
Yes, I can refer you.
This link clearly answers your question, and the Constitutional amendment is the second amendment.
http://www.law.ua.edu/lawreview/mcintosh512.htm

Congress does not make the decision of when the people revolt, the people do.

[tinybear]

Thanks for the link. Doesn't specifically comply with my request, but this passage is interesting:

"The federal government can now muster war-waging capabilities that, though they might be used only at a terrible cost in American lives, could not be overcome by even the most determined of popular uprisings.(11) With modern weaponry and the diminished interest of American civilians in things martial, gone is the era when a concerted popular effort could have deterred even the most destructive resistance of the government to its own overthrow.

With these two passings--the disappearance from Second Amendment doctrine of the revolutionary focus and the death of the American citizenry's absolute ability to overthrow the government by force--so has gone the deepest, most profound, and most vital function of the Second Amendment. Insofar as the Second Amendment was once the ultimate check against the federal government in a elaborate system of checks and balances, the Amendment is a shadow of its former self. The Second Amendment has been the subject of a gradual disappearing act, no longer guarding absolutely the touchstone of robust democratic governance--a right of self-determination--but constitutionally requiring something that some Americans consider to be of questionable worth--a right to own guns. The Second Amendment is no longer afforded the status befitting the solemn political right it was intended to be, and it is no longer clear that it would have any modern meaning even if it were."

Confirms what I've always thought.

[Sonart]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Sonart, in case you haven't noticed, each state also has a constitution, which was designed to be in FULL ALIGNMENT with the Federal Constitution.

Yep. Federal Constitution trumps State Constitutions.

--"YES. State constitutions and State laws MUST be in compliance with, and in conformity to, the Constitution of the United States of America to be acceptable as one of the sovereign states of the union of the United States of America;"

"Provided, the Constitution to be formed in virtue of the authority herein given, shall be republican, and consistent with the Constitution of the United States; that it shall contain the fundamental principles of civil and religious Liberty; conformable to the provisions of the Constitution of the United States." -- Enabling Act of Congress., Feb.20. 1811. c.21., 2 U.S. Statute 641.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Miller did not answer the crucial question of whether the Second Amendment embodies an individual or collective right to bear arms.

I think their meaning was fairly clear, but Miller did leave questions unanswered. The 9th Circuit Court conceded this in Lockyer...

--"They point out that, as we have already noted, Miller, like most other cases that address the Second Amendment, fails to provide much reasoning in support of its conclusion. We agree that our determination in Hickman that Miller endorsed the collective rights position is open to serious debate. We also agree that the entire subject of the meaning of the Second Amendment deserves more consideration than we, or the Supreme Court, have thus far been able (or willing) to give it."--

...whereupon they address the issue in considerable length, concluding...

--"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...

... the Second Amendment affords only a collective right to own or possess guns or other firearms,"--


.