The NRA doesn’t appear to be a party to the lawsuit.
1 Like
Nope. Ever hear of McDonald v. Chicago? The 2nd has been incorporated against the states and subordinate jurisdictions.
Yes, they are. The Militia Clause, as it is known, is a dependent clause. The remainder of the 2nd Amendment is an independent clause. It stands on its own as a complete sentence without the Militia Clause. There’s nothing in the rules of English grammar that says that “militia” in the Militia Clause and “the people” in the independent clause have anything to do with each other.
The Militia Clause is declarative in nature. It doesn’t empower the government to do anything. The independent clause, on the other hand, prohibits the government from infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
I dunno if you’ve checked. But what’s under discussion isn’t grammar.
1 Like
Yes we are when you write:
Your point?
You appear to have missed it.
3 Likes
You pasted a link. You didn’t make a point.
Living Constitutionalism lacks even more utility. The rights enumerated in a constitution are a check on the government’s power. If a constitution means whatever the government needs it to mean, then it isn’t really a check on their power.
Collective Rights don’t exist.
There are 16 occurrences of the word “right” in the US Constitution and Amendments:
The copyright and patent clause “…to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;”
The First Amendment “…the right of the people peaceably to assemble…”
2nd Amendment “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms…”
4A “The right of the people to be secure in their persons…”
6A “…the right to a speedy and public trial…”
7A “…the right of trial by jury…”
9A “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights…”
12a “… whenever the right of choice…”
14A “…the right to vote…”
15A “The right of citizens of the United States to vote…”
19A “The right of citizens of the United States to vote…”
20A “…the right of choice … the right of choice…”
24A “The right of citizens of the United States to vote…”
26A “The right of citizens of the United States … to vote…”
There are a bunch of other instances in the Amendments where a right is protected, and not called a “right” as well. Every single case other than the 2nd Amendment involves an individual having that right. States don’t have rights. They have powers. If the second amendment was intended to protect a state’s ability to arm its citizenry, it would have said that states would have the power to arm their citizenry.
To assert that there is such a thing as a collective right would require there to be another one. AFAICT, there is no other right that only is exercised as a collective. The closest there is, is the right to peaceably assemble, but that’s the right of individuals to form a collective.
1 Like
Nope, but we know the difference between “militia” and “the people”, unlike you. The militia is well regulated, but the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The 2nd Amendment didn’t apply to the states and subordinate jurisdictions until McDonald v. Chicago incorporated it.
3 Likes
Not access to health care. The right to hunt on public land. Right to privacy. Parental rights.
There are myriad small and large, vague or specific things where a right exists. I can’t tell you how broad the use outside of this context is. But “collective” is the label we’ve traditionally thrown on the thoroughly abridgable, common law, right to bear and keep arms.
Cause the Constitution does not exist in a vacuum and wasn’t created as an isolated document.
It was written from an assumption of British Common Law at the time, and we exist in a common law system.
It contains numerous direct references to articles of common law without defining them, sometimes without even naming them.
One such direct reference is “the right to bear and keep arms”. As that reference only exists in a self contained clause, that’s clearly labeled as addressing the administration of militias, rather than being enumerated on it’s own or extended to other context. It’s basically a legal reference intended to back that clause. It mentions something considered to already exist, rather than creating or encoding something on its own.
It ain’t but. Or and.
Since you don’t seem to have figured it out on your own.
Those two grammatical clauses are not seperate legal clauses. And they are not meant to and do not make a seperate legal point. So to phrase it plainly:
The right to bear and keep arms shall not be abridged in ways that effect the management of militias.
Ok good. No inalienable right to gun ownership.
The only context where restrictions on firearms are barred is those that impact the management and maintenance of formal militias.
Otherwise it’s abridge away.
Which was the court sanctified read until about the 90’s.
3 Likes
I am not sure what you are talking about. I don’t support any laws that restrict one set of people and not others, other than felons, which I support a path back to reinstating their rights in non-violent cases. If you killed someone 1) you should be locked up for a long time and 2) your actions logically dictate you deserve to lose some rights, just as your actions lead to your loss of liberty with jail time.
As for ownership by minors, I am not objecting to those laws - but they are a bit arbitrary. State laws vary on age of ownership, even if they can’t buy one. But also US law has repeatedly shown that minors don’t have the full rights and protection of the constitution that they do as adults. Such as you can’t go around school with a weed leaf shirt, or one with weapon on it. Or they can’t even buy spray paint, as they might use their freedom of speech to paint up a wall with it. (Or tubes of model glue - there is a video about that…) That said, I am not sure how much things would change if there weren’t age restrictions and if they lifted it I would be like, “Ok.”
And actually, there are no laws banning babies from owning muskets. They aren’t even considered firearms federally.
I am not sure which language is stronger:
Abridged in a legal sense is to take away or restrict - such as a right.
Infringe in a legal sense to so violate or encroach on anothers right.
Despite the strength of the language of the Constitutions, pretty much every amendment has asterisks and exceptions.
I haven’t asserted that. I concede the government has a right to SOME restrictions. And even if I were to shift to the “shall not be infringed” camp, clearly I would have lost the battle because the 1934 NFA and 1968 Gun Control Act have withstood all challenges. So while I acknowledge the government has the right to pass some restrictions, I can also resist or disagree with new restrictions they are attempting. And one could argue that a background check and having to go through an FFL does not actually infringe on that right. I still got the firearm, I just had a hoop to jump through. Similar to how they justify voter ID laws. (which are bullshit, but another topic for another day.)
I have asserted being in a militia is not a requirement for the right. A militia is one of the reasons enumerated for the right.
Well I was accused of revisionist retcon for trying to change the meaning - but I am telling people, that is what “well regulated” means. It is an organized, trained, and equipped militia. You can’t just look at one word and guess at its meaning, you have to look at it in the context of the time and what we are talking about.
But even if we took “regulated” to mean “regulatory laws”, that part applies to the militia, not the people. But hey, good news everyone, regulatory laws DO apply to the people Thousands and thousands of gun laws at every level of government. You did it! Whether the founders meant for it to happen or not, the point is moot, because there are tons of gun laws on the book. So clearly, no matter what that word means, arms are regulated by laws. One can even argue, for the most part, they aren’t infringing on those rights, just putting up hoops to jump through. Except in cases where they go too far and lose the case in the courts.
It should never be looked at as just a “left and right” issue. I know handful of actual far left people. Like actual real Communists who would drag people into the streets for the guillotine types (well maybe not, they are actually nice people). They too are very pro individual gun rights. But carry on.
No, but they are pushing voter ID laws. Which maybe wouldn’t be a bad thing, but then they go and make it very difficult to get an ID if you aren’t one to get a drivers license etc. And thus far those haven’t been shown to be unconstitutional. In theory I am not against the practice, I mean you do have to show SOME proof of you are, but in the past your Voter ID card they mail you or a utility bill was enough. But in practice is is clearly a disenfranchisement scheme for the poor. Another hoop for a secondary class of citizen. It’s bullshit.
Right. And I am not making the point that the government doesn’t have the right or ability to pass laws.
I’m glad to hear that your position has evolved over time. It really wasn’t that long ago when you were asserting the “natural right” to bear arms. So thank you for that. Others don’t see the inherent contradiction in asserting their right while restricting it for others, as evidenced in this thread (and any thread that touches on the subject).
1 Like
And yet the drafters of The Constitution put them together, in the same sentence. Huh. It’s almost like they are meaningless or outright harmful if treated separately…
3 Likes
I think there is a natural right to be able to defend ones’ self. And yes, I tend to argue for less restrictions. But I have to concede that the government has the ability to pass some restrictions because that is the reality of it. The 1934 NFA is still a thing. It isn’t going anywhere, for example.
I guess I missed the posts where there is an “inherent contradiction in asserting their right while restricting it for others,”. I am not really sure what that means.
If its a “my rights to swing my fist end at your nose” type of thing, I agree with that too. Rights are a Venn diagram and unless you live on a self sustaining piece of land and never have to venture out, your rights overlap with others all the time.
2 Likes
More importantly their life is also more important than your stuff. Even if they’re criminals. Although in the US that consensus seems to be less accepted than elsewhere.
4 Likes
The wording of the 2A leaves zero room for any restrictions unless the militia clause has bearing and tempers the declaration in the second half of the statement. So when some people say they have an unrestricted right to bear arms but then allow any restrictions on others, that contradicts the wording they are depending upon for their own rights.
1 Like
