quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech

On a lighter note.. just thinking about the "Right to Arm Bears"

http://www.baenebooks.com/chapters/0671319590/0671319590.htm

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
" Mr. Heller did not want to go through the whole democratic process of bringing a bill through the D.C. legislation. As that would have been the correct way to do it;
gaining support from fellow Americans living in D.C. No, he went by way of the courts"

That is what you do when a law violates your rights.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

The four parts as I see it:

A ) A well regulated militia...
B ) ....being nessissary for the security of a free state.
C ) The right to bear arms,...
D ) ...shall not be infringed.

Abandon the notion that how "you" see it means anything. And stop re-writing it to suit your fevered imaginings. The Amendment as ratified by the States is comprised of two parts, a prefatory clause and a main clause. It reads:

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. ~Source

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
Why do you suppose the prefatory clause is there?

Prefatory clauses were used in the constitutions of the time when the intent was to stress the importance of the right being protected, as not merely desirable but as essential to the undertaking of establishing a just and free state.

In the Bill of Rights, "the right of the people" everywhere denotes an individual right, peaceably to assemble, to petition the government, to be secure in their persons, but only the Second Amendment contains a prefatory clause which sets apart the right "to keep and bear arms" as essential to the people's ability to maintain their freedoms and as the final guarantor of all other rights.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
You note that the people, armed, are the militia, but militias don't just happen, especially well-regulated ones. That takes governance of some sort, including verification, enforcement, and consequences.

In the context of the Second Amendment and the usage of the time, "well regulated" intends well turned out with serviceable arms that they know how to use. The militia does not operate as an organized force, or in the terms of the time as a "select militia." Its training does not require formations and drills. But it does require individual skill with its arms, and therein lies a point that I've raised before with regard to CCW license requirements.

I am endlessly frustrated when the use of a firearm was justified, but not in my view the way it was used, i.e., some nut blasting away, killing a person unnecessarily, or killing the wrong person, and in the case of the police, which is admittedly a separate matter, sometimes wounding a dozen or more bystanders in the bargain.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
" Mr. Heller did not want to go through the whole democratic process of bringing a bill through the D.C. legislation. As that would have been the correct way to do it;
gaining support from fellow Americans living in D.C. No, he went by way of the courts"

That is what you do when a law violates your rights.

The law did not violate his rights. The law was two fold. The first was a ban on all firearm permits within the D.C. limits. The second was no firearm permits would be issued. So if you had a firearm that was not issued for D.C., and you lived in D.C., you were violating the law for D.C.. They didn't ban your ability to obtain a firearm, they ban the ability to have a lawful permit for said firearm. D.C. could not create a law that would ban firearms within D.C. per the supremacy clause.

Each of the lower courts upheld the law, since Mr. Heller's second firearm was not part of his duties with "a well regulated militia...". If the second firearm was part of his duties as a police officer, he could have said weapon since its protected under the 2nd amendment. That's REALLY how the amendment was suppose to work. But Mr. Heller did not make a request with his police department for the second arm, nor through the local government of D.C.

When people want a law changed, they get like minded persons together and go through the process to have a law changed. They might have to go before the government to enter the request into the system to be pushed towards a vote by all citizens in D.C.. That's how your suppose to get laws changed. Not this 'back alley legal crap'. You sue the government (as per the 1st amendment) when you have a issue that will never be accepted (i.e. Brown vs. Board of Education), but it violates the standing laws, that's when you sue over grievances. He knew that most of the area would simply vote against it, since it would increase crime and violence in the non-federal areas. An he knew that the second gun was not protected under the 2nd amendment, because the nature of the 2nd was for those arms being apart of 'a well regulated militia'. Without the first sentence, he could have that second gun. But then, so could any person, with any arm, for any reason. Including terrorists.....

I'm not the one that created the 2nd and then forgot to define it for a population two hundred years in the future to be understood. The lower courts decided on their ruling not due to politics, but due to the rule of law. The US Supreme Court decided on it for political reasons to help the GOP out. But then, three of the conservative justices have never struck me as being wise....

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Why do you suppose the prefatory clause is there?

Prefatory clauses were used in the constitutions of the time when the intent was to stress the importance of the right being protected, as not merely desirable but as essential to the undertaking of establishing a just and free state.

In the Bill of Rights, "the right of the people" everywhere denotes an individual right, peaceably to assemble, to petition the government, to be secure in their persons, but only the Second Amendment contains a prefatory clause which sets apart the right "to keep and bear arms" as essential to the people's ability to maintain their freedoms and as the final guarantor of all other rights.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

You note that the people, armed, are the militia, but militias don't just happen, especially well-regulated ones. That takes governance of some sort, including verification, enforcement, and consequences.

In the context of the Second Amendment and the usage of the time, "well regulated" intends well turned out with serviceable arms that they know how to use. The militia does not operate as an organized force, or in the terms of the time as a "select militia." Its training does not require formations and drills. But it does require individual skill with its arms, and therein lies a point that I've raised before with regard to CCW license requirements.

I am endlessly frustrated when the use of a firearm was justified, but not in my view the way it was used, i.e., some nut blasting away, killing a person unnecessarily, or killing the wrong person, and in the case of the police, which is admittedly a separate matter, sometimes wounding a dozen or more bystanders in the bargain.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lucky7dawg

I have a question, open for anyone to answer. If Joether, DK, et al are correct, and the Second Amendment is not an individual right, it's only for organized militias that can be controlled and disciplined by the Government, why were the guns not rounded up after the Revolution, and no one ever thought that is what it meant until the mid 1960s? Why, if that's what it has always meant, do you have to change it now? Ownership of weapons has always been common and legal in America. Not requiring any sort of registration and/or "permits".

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

quote:

ORIGINAL: lucky7dawg

I have a question, open for anyone to answer. If Joether, DK, et al are correct, and the Second Amendment is not an individual right, it's only for organized militias that can be controlled and disciplined by the Government, why were the guns not rounded up after the Revolution, and no one ever thought that is what it meant until the mid 1960s? Why, if that's what it has always meant, do you have to change it now? Ownership of weapons has always been common and legal in America. Not requiring any sort of registration and/or "permits".

I've pretty much made the same comment as your question. "The 2nd amendment has referred to an individual right for the better part of 200 years. Now in the age of modern progressive liberalism, certain powers that be are trying to indoctrinate the population into believing it means something else.

quote:

Because they want to believe that the Constitution is a "living document" which can mean whatever
they want it to.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

Because they want to believe that the Constitution is a "living document" which can mean whatever
they want it to.

You want to argue for its meaning as a 'dead document', then?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Now that shot is beneath you. It's meaning doesn't change without amendment, not just
because someone wants the meaning to change.
You may not be familiar with the "living document" argument. In effect it says that the Constitution
means want they want it to mean, in other words it means nothing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

Because they want to believe that the Constitution is a "living document" which can mean whatever
they want it to.

You want to argue for its meaning as a 'dead document', then?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Why do you suppose the prefatory clause is there?

Prefatory clauses were used in the constitutions of the time when the intent was to stress the importance of the right being protected, as not merely desirable but as essential to the undertaking of establishing a just and free state.

In the Bill of Rights, "the right of the people" everywhere denotes an individual right, peaceably to assemble, to petition the government, to be secure in their persons, but only the Second Amendment contains a prefatory clause which sets apart the right "to keep and bear arms" as essential to the people's ability to maintain their freedoms and as the final guarantor of all other rights.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

You note that the people, armed, are the militia, but militias don't just happen, especially well-regulated ones. That takes governance of some sort, including verification, enforcement, and consequences.

In the context of the Second Amendment and the usage of the time, "well regulated" intends well turned out with serviceable arms that they know how to use. The militia does not operate as an organized force, or in the terms of the time as a "select militia." Its training does not require formations and drills. But it does require individual skill with its arms, and therein lies a point that I've raised before with regard to CCW license requirements.

I am endlessly frustrated when the use of a firearm was justified, but not in my view the way it was used, i.e., some nut blasting away, killing a person unnecessarily, or killing the wrong person, and in the case of the police, which is admittedly a separate matter, sometimes wounding a dozen or more bystanders in the bargain.

K.

Thanks Kirata. Lucid. I get it.

Subjective perhaps on my part, but seem to underscore the point that it's a product of the 18th century, no longer reflecting "intent" in the context of the 21st century.

I suppose that's up to Congress, though, or the Supreme Court. I've not a lot of faith in either these days.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Now that shot is beneath you. It's meaning doesn't change without amendment, not just
because someone wants the meaning to change.
You may not be familiar with the "living document" argument. In effect it says that the Constitution
means want they want it to mean, in other words it means nothing.

I was only asking, Bama. As you may know, we have no written constitution here in the UK, nor any amendments to same, obviously. Any 'dead' versus 'living' document debate is indeed unfamiliar. But I've got to say, if it's *not* a living document then, again, it means nothing at all of relevance to today, does it?