What America's gun fanatics won't tell you

[ffr]

The Second Amendment doesn’t give you the right to own a gun



Can we please stop pretending that the Second Amendment contains an unfettered right for everyone to buy a gun? It doesn’t, and it never has. The claims made by the small number of extremists, before and after the Orlando, Fla., massacre, are based on a deliberate lie.

The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution doesn’t just say Congress shall not infringe the right to “keep and bear arms.” It specifically says that right exists in order to maintain “a well-regulated militia.” Even the late conservative Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia admitted those words weren’t in there by accident. Oh, and the Constitution doesn’t just say a “militia.” It says a “well-regulated” militia.

What did the Founding Fathers mean by that? We don’t have to guess because they told us. In Federalist No. 29 of the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton explained at great length precisely what a “well-regulated militia” was, why the Founding Fathers thought we needed one, and why they wanted to protect it from being disarmed by the federal government.

The Second Amendment is an instrument of government. It’s not about hunting or gun collecting or carrying your pistol into the saloon.

And there’s a reason absolutely no gun extremist will ever direct you to that 1788 essay because it blows their baloney into a million pieces.

A “well-regulated militia” didn’t mean guys who read Soldier of Fortune magazine running around in the woods with AK-47s and warpaint on their faces. It basically meant what today we call the National Guard.
<snip>

But even if you still want to defend the Second Amendment, it should apply only to those who volunteer to join the “select corps” of their National Guard, undergo rigorous training to attain “proficiency in military functions” and perform the “operations of an army,” serve as ordered under the ultimate command of the president and be subject to military discipline.

So if you’re running around waving your AK-47 under the Second Amendment, and you haven’t shown up yet at your local National Guard headquarters, you’re not a “patriot.” You’re a deserter. - Marketwatch

[AzureCrest]

1. So, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged"

doesn't mean the people?

[ffr]

2. Is that your only conclusion to the OP-ED after reading Alexander Hamilton's Federalist Paper 29?

It's linked above, in case you haven't been exposed to it. It was written Thursday, January 10, 1788.

[AzureCrest]

3. Trying to figure out your logic, here.

Seems to follow, that "the right of the people to peacefully assemble, and petition the government for redress of grievances" also would not mean "the people".

[ffr]

4. I'm sorry, but you just made a straw man fallacy. I have offered no proposition at this point

Therefore I am not sure what the point of your post is.

Please redirect your focus to comments in my original reply.

Welcome to D.U.

[AzureCrest]

10. "The Second Amendment doesnt give you the right to own a gun "

Seems like a proposition to me.

Just sayin'.

[ffr]

24. Just sayin' what? Who are you talking to?

You said "The Second Amendment doesnt give you the right to own a gun "

Why did you bring that up? I didn't say that? The article has a source.

[gejohnston]

22. it isn't a strawman,

it is a valid point. The writer is cherry picking the same quotes that he copied from others. When I "googled it", I found basically the same thing from various less than knowledgeable bloggers.

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html

[ffr]

26. It quite clearly is a straw man fallacy. I have made no proposition.

To put words into my mouth and then shoot those words down is the definition of a straw man fallacy.

[gejohnston]

28. here is the logic,

"people" in the rest of the BoR refers to individuals, just like it does in the 2A. The BoR were forced on the Federalists by the Anti Federalists to protect individual rights from the government overreach. Some investment blogger plagiarizing the same cherry-picked quotes out of context doesn't change that fact.
That the other guy was making.

What I found amusing that the comments section is better informed than the writer.

[ffr]

31. Who are you talking to? This isn't a reply.

If you want to help me out with a point that the other guy was making, reply to the article, not me. I didn't write the article.

[krispos42]

61. Yes you did.

Quoting somebody's viewpoint to support your own is offering a proposition.

Then saying you didn't offer a proposition is gaslighting.

[Puha Ekapi_2]

63. I get it...

...you hate guns and gun owners, and you have no intention of having an honest dialogue. 'Bout sum it up?

[safeinOhio]

5. For 200 years the said

it means the collective right, not the individual right.
To see how it worked look up Shay’s Rebllion.

[gejohnston]

20. no it didn't

the concept of "collective rights" didn't exist.

Also, there never has been a SCOTUS case that said it was a collective right.

[pangaia]

29. False equivalency, in my opinion.

One says, " in order to maintain.." Which I believe is called a conjunctive phrase..

The other says.. 'and.'

[HopeAgain]

34. Thats not all the laguage of the second.

[Eko]

6. Thats a very good point

and it makes sense until the second militia act of 1792.
"The second Act, passed May 8, 1792, provided for the organization of the state militias. It conscripted every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792
Im still not sure what to think though, only that the second militia act throws some major kinks into your argument. I prefer your conclusion, but facts are facts and dont care about what I prefer.

[ffr]

7. You had me interested there in what you had to say all the way up to the point

where you offered your own version of a straw man fallacy.

Im still not sure what to think though, only that the second militia act throws some major kinks into your argument. I prefer your conclusion, but facts are facts and dont care about what I prefer.

I've made no conclusion. Please clarify.

[Eko]

8. I thought these were your words.

"The Second Amendment doesn’t give you the right to own a gun" If not my apologies, if so that is indeed a conclusion.

[ffr]

12. Nope. Who are you talking to? n/t

[Eko]

16. You.

It says right there on the top right "in response to". Wow, relax a little. We are not on a freeper site.

[Eko]

9. Ah, I see

The last link is to the article, sorry, it was kind of confusing.

[ffr]

13. You got it!

[Eko]

11. It still doesnt change the fact

that the second militia act puts a very major kink into that argument.

[ffr]

15. The third straw man fallacy already in this brief discussion.

that the second militia act puts a very major kink into that argument.

I have made no proposition up to this point. Who are you talking to?

[Eko]

18. that argument

means the argument presented in the article. There is no straw man there. There is a difference in "Your argument" and "that argument". Once again look up on the top right is says "response to" to figure out who I am talking to, its you.

[ffr]

23. Well yes, there is a straw man there.

You said It still doesnt change the fact that the second militia act puts a very major kink into that argument.

I've made no such claim about anything to do with second militia act, so why are you bring that up in reply to what I said earlier. To say that I have and to say that therefore you've presented a major kink to that argument is clearly a straw man, but of an order of magnitude I have never seen. You seem to be having a conversation with someone else.

Please, stick to what I have said. One more strike and I will simply block you as a D.U. member. I prefer insightful discussion that enlightens. This bores me.

[Eko]

25. Wow, so no one can comment

on the opinion of the person who wrote the article that you posted? Please block me, I prefer to have conversations on here with people that can be remotely pleasant to talk to.

[ffr]

27. You are welcome to comment on the article, but you will get my rebuttal

anytime you make a logical fallacy. Reply to the main post's reply button or at the bottom. Replying to me directly, means that you are having a discussion with ME about something.

Welcome to D.U.

[Eko]

33. Ive been here since 2011.

I made no logical fallacy, I made a mistake due to your odd way of posting links and I already apologized for that. If I reply to the main post it replies to you directly also does it not? Everything I said in post 6 was correct except for the mistake of thinking it was your opinion, there is absolutely no reason especially since I corrected that mistake to start an entirely new thread. I am having a discussion with you directly since you posted the article.

[ffr]

38. No, Eko, it does not reply to me directly. It replies to me INdirectly.

When you reply to a sourced article posted on D.U., you are replying to that sourced article. When you reply to me directly, you are having a conversation with me, not the sourced article.

Why do I have to explain this?

[Eko]

40. The article is responding back to me and not you?

When I do that?

[ffr]

42. Can you re-write that? I'm not sure what to make of it. n/t

[Eko]

46. "When you reply to a sourced article posted on D.U., you are replying to that sourced article."

Im not replying to you? When you go to "My Posts" and I have commented on the original post "the article you posted" does it not say Time of last reply to me? for you? Cause it does for all of us.

[Eko]

47. In other words

does post 44 not show up on your "My Posts" tab under "Time of last reply to me"?

[ffr]

48. Sorry, but I don't have time for this.

Ask an admin or start a new thread asking your question.

[Eko]

49. All you have to do

is click the "My Posts" tab on the top right of your screen and see if it shows up under "Time of last reply to me". Thats all you have to do. When you do that see if my comment #44 is under that.

[Eko]

50. There is no

"time of last reply to the article", it is "time of last reply to me". The me being you.

[Eko]

39. See how this is done?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142015958
They did not post all the links embedded in the article like you did, it is very clear where the link for the article is. But it is only from Judi Lynn who has been here far longer than you.

[ffr]

41. What is your point?

Am I suppose to appeal to the authority of a user that has been here longer than I have for some reason? Does that somehow intrinsically impune or devalue my posts in any way, because it shouldn't.

You've lost me.

[Eko]

43. My original post to "the article"

has about 82 words not counting the link or numbers. One was a mistake which I have admitted and corrected and I have to reply back to the original post to have a conversation about it. Ive never ever heard anything like that, any DU'ers want to comment on that?

Sorry, 2 words.

[ffr]

45. Why are you telling me this?

I don't care how many words were in your original post. I'm not interested in if mistakes were made. If you have something to say about a sourced article, reply to the main reply button, not in a chain with me.

Ive never ever heard anything like that, any DU'ers want to comment on that?

Again to my point, this belongs at the bottom as a reply to the thread or as a question to D.U. admins, not me.

[Eko]

51. Where is the rule that says that?

[ffr]

54. Huh? There's no rule. Why do you bring that up? I've explained this already.

If you reply to me, you are having a conversation with me.

Welcome to D.U.

[Eko]

56. And I replied to you.

On the article and your comment on what I said about the article. Apparently you have a problem somehow that makes no sense whatsoever, possibly it has to do with defending the article you posted I'm guessing.
Keep on keeponing.

[Eko]

14. I wasnt the only person to make that mistake.

The way you posted the links embedded in the article and then the link for the article is kind of confusing, its hard to tell where the article starts and ends and what is what. Honestly it looks like you are making that argument then posting links to support it. Personally I would just post the article and the link for the article at the bottom, let people go to the article and follow their links. Thanks, keep on keeponing.

[ffr]

17. No, it's quite clear. The excerpt in light blue references the article clearly.

If you had any doubt, all you had to do was reference the link.

[Eko]

19. Yeah,

The fourth link down. Whatever.

[ffr]

55. That's a given. Articles are referenced sometimes at the top for LBN, but usually at the bottom.

The links you see in the article I posted here are links from within the article itself, in their original format, going to the exact link as presented.

The About Us and Terms of Service pages may help you...
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

Each sub-forum may have additional guidelines. Please check before posting. Violating posts will be subject to admin or jury removal.

[Eko]

57. Yup Im familiar with those.

You being the only one I have ever seen in what? 6 years? putting the links embedded in the article in your post, I mean to defend that is pretty strange, then to tell me some fake rules that no one but yourself follows on du, And then to post the TOS, as if I dont know what they are or have broken them. You have problems. I am sorry, very sorry for you. Hopefully you get to a better place in your life, when you do come talk to me, I would be happy to have a conversion with you about anything. Peace out,
And,
Welcome to Du.
Eko.

[gejohnston]

21. Sorry, Marketwatch is

full of shit. The BoR are limits on government (negative rights), not granting anything to individuals.
The writer doesn't know what he is talking about and is cherry picking
He might know something about writing about the stock market and bitcoin, but he doesn't know shit about Constitutional law or civics.
https://www.marketwatch.com/topics/journalists/brett-arends

Here is a quote that he ignores (assuming he actually read it, since it looks plagiarized, see above)

What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government is impossible to be foreseen...The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution... Little more can reasonably be aimed at with the respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped ; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.

there is more

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.

Nice virtue signaling agiprop for the uninformed (and people who flunked US History and Civics), not hardly a good argument.

[SomethingNew]

30. Not a very historically sound point of view.

If you think the 2A ought not to exist, have the courage to argue that. Don't try to rewrite history.

[ffr]

35. Here's the fourth straw man fallacy. How many minutes has it been?

Not a very historically sound point of view.

If you think the 2A ought not to exist, have the courage to argue that. Don't try to rewrite history.

I don't think the article took the position that the 2A ought not to exist. Where did you come up with that conclusion?

[sharedvalues]

32. Even Scalia agrees that there is no right

And Scalia is wrong about the second militia amendment.
He was purchased by gun corps and identity politics divisive billionaires that use guns to get votes for tax cuts. He died on a billionaire-funded gun junket that no federal employee would be ethically allowed to accept!!

But even HE agrees there is no unregulated right.

Link to tweet

?s=20

[Marengo]

66. Heller did not affirm an individual right?

[sharedvalues]

36. Another ref agreeing with post: 2nd militia amend allows regulation

Link to tweet

?s=20

[Eko]

44. Thats a very good point

and it makes sense until the second militia act of 1792.
"The second Act, passed May 8, 1792, provided for the organization of the state militias. It conscripted every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792
Im still not sure what to think though, only that the second militia act throws some major kinks into that argument. I prefer the articles conclusion, but facts are facts and dont care about what I prefer.

There, now can we talk about it?

[Ferrets are Cool]

52. You don't really think those assholes CARE what the constitution says, do you?

[leanforward]

53. Finally, my interpretation!

If you're not a member of the NG, you don't need an assault weapon. If you're a hunter, you need a weapon. When we were a wilderness, a weapon was survival of the family.

Thinking back in history, militias did not have armories for the storage of weapons. The weapons were kept at home.

Now defense is more centralized, DOD with the NG. Militias kept the King and others at bay.

[Straw Man]

59. Correct.

If you're not a member of the NG, you don't need an assault weapon.

Right. You don't need a select-fire weapon capable of full-auto fire, because suppressive fire is inappropriate for self-defense anywhere except on a battlefield.

The AR-15 is not a select-fire weapon capable of full-auto fire.

[krispos42]

58. Title 10, United States Code, Section 311

Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are-

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

So, only male civilians between the ages of 17 and 45 have a right to own guns. All women, and all men aged 46 and over, have a privilege extended by the government.




Or we can try this line of reasoning:

There are 3 entities referenced in the amendment: the militia, the state, and the people. The last specifically have the right to bear arms.

The state, as a governmental jurisdiction, already has the right to have armed agents (law enforcement) and an armed military force. It's inherent in a governing system. It doesn't need to be stated in an amendment.

[jimmy the one]

68. women suffered with no suffrage

krispos: There are 3 entities referenced in the amendment: the militia, the state, and the people. The last specifically have the right to bear arms.

Women did not have a right to bear arms in 1792. They could not join any militia. They were considered 2nd class citizens
Only about 20% (adult white males) of the american population circa 1790 had a right to keep & bear arms. Women could own firearms yes, but had no right to, oftentimes unless their husband concurred:

webster's 1828 dictionary: http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/citizen
Citizen 5. In the United States, a person, native or naturalized, who has the privilege of exercising the elective franchise, or the qualifications which enable him to vote for rulers, and to purchase and hold real estate.

womenhistory: When the new U.S. Constitution went into effect on March 4, 1789, concern over individual liberties gave rise to the adoption of the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments), but those rights did not pertain directly to women. However, state courts and legislatures began to vary in the interpretation of Person in the Constitution; in some jurisdictions narrowing the meaning to cover only people with property, only men or only white men.
Over the years, many claimants asserted that discrimination against women in voting, in property ownership, in occupational license and other matters was unconstitutional given the Constitution’s use of the term Person, but the all-male courts did not give this a fair hearing...
http://www.womenhistoryblog.com/2013/06/womens-rights-after-american-revolution.html

krispos citing current militia code: (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

The unorganized militia has by far the more members, about 98% of adult men & women are, or have been in the unorganized militia.
However, the unorganized militia fails the 2nd amendment litmus test, in that, by definition, an unorganized militia cannot be, 'well regulated'. Ha.

(a previous post of mine): Of course women could carry firearms, even hunt & varmint plink, but they could not bear arms as per militia or in common defense, disallowed, with or without the militia clause dictate. So obviously the 2ndA did not apply to women either way, which says the right to keep & BEAR arms.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=205508

(off till next week's library visit, don't misinterpret 'no reply').

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

60. I'll say this

Mr Arends' background as a MarketWatch columnist and biographer of Mitt Romney uniquely qualifies him to determine the effect of the Second Amendment.

You want to impugn the integrity of Justice Scalia, or find a writer who does, go ahead. You'd have plenty of good company as would any writer you might quote.

To the issue of the meaning and effect of the 2A, Mr Hamilton was a Federalist and opposed any Bill of Rights being attached to the Constitution. To attain a real and correct understanding of the law, I would site Federalist #46. Authored by the same author who wrote the Bill of Rights, James Madison.

Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence.

I will point out that the 1790 Census lists the number of free white males over 16 (folks who were considered militia eligible) as a bit more than 800,000. I suggest that number be adjusted a bit lower to account for those over 45. Madison clearly states there a position agreeing with the 2nd Militia Act passed in 1792. This agreement between Federalist #46 and 2nd Militia Act defines the concept that, if you can or do head a household, you have the right to be armed.

I will further suggest that the principle of in pari materia states that within a body of legislation any term be interpreted consistently throughout that legislation. (https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/in+pari+materia) The term "the people" refers to exactly the same folks to which that term in every other article in the BoR refers.

[MarvinGardens]

62. Federalist 29 isn't about the 2nd Amendment.

It is about Congress's Article 1 powers with respect to the militia. The part Hamilton quotes is Article 1, Section 8, clause 16:

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;

[ManiacJoe]

64. Well, the first quoted paragraph was good.

After that it all fell apart quite quick....

[AncientGeezer]

65. President Obama disagrees with you...

[jimmy the one]

67. ffr thread is spot on

ffr is correct; and the 2nd amendment has been corrupted by the 2008 heller decision, subverted from its original meaning & intent. The heller decision was 5-4, politically based. The previous ruling on the 2nd amendment was in 1939, where a unanimous 8-0 verdict (one recusal) rendered a militia based interpretation:

(a previous post of mine): .. 1939 Miller supreme court case, which clearly noted 2ndA was militia based, and a followup dept of justice (DOJ) brief to the very 1939 court, declaring the DOJ's opinion of 2ndA as a militia based rkba:

1939 Miller scotus case: 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 {militia} forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/307/174

doj brief, 1938: In the only other case in which the provisions of the National Firearm Act have been assailed as being in violation of the 2nd Amendment (US v. Adams {1935}, the contention was summarily rejected as follows: The second amendment to the Constitution, providing, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed," has no application to this act. The Constitution does not grant the privilege to racketeers and desperadoes to carry weapons of the character dealt with in the act. It {2ndA} refers to the militia, a protective force of government; to the collective body and not individual rights.

Scalia also perverted justice joseph story into an individual rights proponent, when story was a strong adherent to the militia based rkba. Read here how story felt that without organization (obviously the militia) it would be impracticable to keep the people duly armed, a pretty good refutation of the individual rkba theory, since, by scalia, being duly armed had nowt to do with militia:

jos story early 1800's: And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations.
How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.
http://presspubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendIIs10.html

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=189495

Which clause justice story is referring to, isn't totally clear, but doesn't matter that much, the paragraph refutes the i-rkba.
So far, there have been 12 (8 miller, 4 heller) scotus justices for the militia, 5 for the individual. Militia wins, 12 - 5.

[friendly_iconoclast]

69. You forget that the findings in Miller were rendered moot by Heller. The same standard applies...

...to all USSC decisions that are overturned by later decisions of same.

That line of argument is no more valid than some regressives mourning over the 'lost'
findings of Dred Scott or Plessy v. Ferguson

Also, your citation of Story is mere 'argument from authority'

[jimmy the one]

70. Icon claims 1939 Miller decision was overturned.

icon: You forget that the findings in Miller were rendered moot by Heller. The same standard applies.....to all USSC decisions that are overturned by later decisions of same.

Dunno what you are saying here. The 1939 Miller decision re 2ndA was overturned? Are sawed off shotguns legal now? Jack Miller DID NOT violate the law when he carried a sawed off shotgun across state lines, because he had a 2ndA right to do so?

icon: That line of argument is no more valid than some regressives mourning over the 'lost' findings of Dred Scott or Plessy v. Ferguson

Except for one GLARING inconsistency in YOUR truth twisting argument, in that 2008 Heller did not overturn 1939 Miller, while dred scott was overturned by the 14th amendment, and plessy overturned by brown.
Indeed, Scalia cited Miller into his own Heller subversion of the 2nd amendment. Scalia did NOT oveturn miller, he cited it in support (cleverly ignoring the pro militia parts of miller):

Scalia citing Heller decison, citing gun lobby revisionist history: (f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, nor Presser v. Illinois, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.

Scalia citing Heller, cont'd: The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/

icon: Also, your citation of Story is mere 'argument from authority'

I can understand your saying that (whatever you're twisting it to mean) since 'argumentation from valid reasoning' appears anathema to you.

Why is Heller such a radical departure from prior Second Amendment case law? .. the ruling in Heller represented a dramatic reversal of the Court’s previous interpretation of the Second Amendment. In United States v. Miller, the Court stated, in a unanimous decision, that the “obvious purpose” of the Second Amendment was to “assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of” the state militia, and the Amendment “must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.”
In reliance on Miller, hundreds of lower federal and state appellate courts had rejected Second Amendment challenges to our nation’s gun laws over the last seven decades, making Heller‘s reversal of this interpretation a watershed moment in Second Amendment law.
lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/the-second-amendment/the-supreme-court-the-second-amendment/dc-v-heller/

[jmg257]

71. Glad I am not a fanatic - love quoting Fed#29 to point out what was meant by "well regulated".

Of course the article is wrong several times - Federalist 29 explains what HAMILTON WANTED the militia to be - NOT what it was in actuality, or in law.

It was NOT a select militia more in tune with the National Guard today. It was all able bodied males of certain ages - barring certain and specific exemptions (none of which I am sure would be thrilled to know they had no right to arms - just cause they aren't in a militia - ha try telling dueling Hamilton he or Burr had no right to arms cause they were in the govt!).

Since "most" citizens within reason are in the militia these days, and as the article explains the prime purpose of the 2nd is to keep the government from dis-arming the militia...tough call, huh?

That is what happens when congress usurped power to change the definition of "militia"...what was otherwise a well defined and well understood entity in 1789 - inclusive of entities that had existed for decades, and were codified as such numerous times, including the very clear-languaged Militia Acts of 1792. Not saying it wasn't warranted - our militias sucked as fighting forces for their original purpose - upholding the guarantees made in the constiitution, protecting our liberties, enforcing the laws, repeal invaders, etc..

Maybe when Congress changed the definition of "militia" to a more select, more federal entity, they should have changed the amendment....they didn't.