What does the 2A really mean?

[Delija]

The Law:


U.S. v. Warin (6th Circuit, 1976)

Unless the Constitution protects the individual's right to own all kinds of arms, there is no principled way to oppose reasonable restrictions on handguns, Uzis or semi-automatic rifles.

If indeed the Second Amendment provides an absolute, constitutional protection for the right to bear arms in order to preserve the power of the people to resist government tyranny, then it must allow individuals to possess bazookas, torpedoes, SCUD missiles and even nuclear warheads, for they, like handguns, rifles and M-16s, are arms. Moreover, it is hard to imagine any serious resistance to the military without such arms. Yet few, if any, would argue that the Second Amendment gives individuals the unlimited right to own any weapons they please. But as soon as we allow governmental regulation of any weapons, we have broken the dam of Constitutional protection. Once that dam is broken, we are not talking about whether the government can constitutionally restrict arms, but rather what constitutes a reasonable restriction.

US vs. Miller - (US Supreme Court 1939)

The 1939 case U.S. v. Miller is the only modern case in which the Supreme Court has addressed this issue. A unanimous Court ruled that the Second Amendment must be interpreted as intending to guarantee the states' rights to maintain and train a militia. "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument," the Court said.
In subsequent years, the Court has refused to address the issue. It routinely denies cert. to almost all Second Amendment cases. In 1983, for example, it let stand a 7th Circuit decision upholding an ordinance in Morton Grove, Illinois, which banned possession of handguns within its borders. The case, Quilici v. Morton Grove 695 F.2d 261 (7th Cir. 1982), cert. denied 464 U.S. 863 (1983), is considered by many to be the most important modern gun control case.

[gsh341]

KP,

The Army National Guard is 366 years old. It was given it's official title in 1798. The Militia Act of 1903 merely organized the Army National Guard and Reserves under a single organizational structure for clarity of command structure and funding among other things.

The definition of the militia, both organized and unorganized is not at odds with itself or the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment merely states that the people have the inherent right (not granted by the government) to keep and bear arms, not just the organized and/or unorganized militia.

I believe the intent of the second amendment is to deter the government from abusing it's power and to also deter foreign and domestic aggressors hostile to our country. I also believe that the founding fathers were referring to personal weapons such as an infantryman might carry. No tanks, rocket launchers, nukes, etc. (undreamed of by the framers of the constitution.)

Reread my altered version of the Second Amendment and you will see that the original intent was for the people to own weapons and not just the militia.

[KP Ling]

gsh,

I understand you, and I got your analogy with the food and refrigerators; it was actually one of the best analogies I have heard. However, I disagree still with the ARNG being 366 years old. Yes, there is a tradition of militias going back that far and indeed I would agree that the ARNG grew out of this tradition. My contention is that the term militia and its definition have changed and today's usage is incompatible with what the term in the militia meant at the time of the writing of the Constitution.

Today, when we speak of a militia in the organized, legal sense we mean the ARNG. However, the term as used by the founders more closely fits groups today that we would call those para-military, survivalist groups of private citizens who go out and shoot together and train without support or supervision of the government. That is how it was at the founding. Militias were simply a group of free men who got together, mostly to drink, but also train and practice with their weapons and in drill in case they were needed. The government did not supervise or control them until over time they were overtaken by legislation and organized state defense forces. when they were called upon to serve the government they were repaid for their time and material (food, shot, beer, etc. that was consumed during their aid of the government).

Some of the reasons these militias were overtaken by more professional and permanent military institutions is Shays Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion, in which an armed populace tried to resist what they saw as a tyrannical government...they failed and so government has sought ever more to abolish the notion that an armed populace can organize and train itself apart from government supervision.

That is my contention with your definition of militia and the age of the National Guard. The militia was seen as no longer necessary towards the middle of the 1800's and had mostly been absorbed into state run armies. This was finalized in 1803 that these state armies could be raised and indeed managed by states, but ultimately they were under the control of federal government. My disagreement with you is that this is no longer a militia, a spontaneous organization of armed private citizens outside of government control, but nothing more than a semi-standing professional army.

[gsh341]

Well KP, think what you want, I'll be celebrating the National Guard's 370th birthday on December 13th, 2006 along with the rest of the military.

[Mike G]

This is a lttle long, but well worth the reading. It gives another viewpoint on U.S. v. Miller, and also gives some insight as to the writing of the Bill of Rights and the idea behind the term militia. Start at page 56 of the document and read the authors viewpoint.


http://rkba.org/judicial/miller-aultice/Miller.doc

[sjp2452]

Originally Posted by bd

When the government starts using secret programs to spy on citizens - they become they and we become we.

First, I absolutely disagree with this statement. No matter what "they" do, they're always accountable to the People. The People may not be able to respond with immediacy (depending on what "they" have tried to pull, i.e. suspending elections, etc), but respond they will (and must).

Second, what citizens are they spying on, and to what end? I already stated this in my last post, but I'll refresh it (if you care to notice...you probably don't). They're listening to international phone calls made to or by suspected terrorist operatives who have obtained visas/green cards/citizenship. Why? To STOP them before they can kill thousands of Americans. Sorry...I just can't find a problem with that.

But what if they decide to spy on me you say? Even if I'm dealing drugs (I'm not), selling black market guns (I'm not) and running massive money laundering operations out of my garage (I'm not) and if they catch all this stuff on warrantless wiretaps, what are they going to do with that info? NOTHING. NADA. ZIP. It's worthless to a prosecutor in the criminal justice system. Why? Because of the protections of the 4A. It's all completely inadmissible, as well as any other evidence derived from information gathered by those wiretaps. My 4A protections have not been harmed one iota. The only thing they can do is disrupt the activities of the one being monitored...the very thing the entire country wishing for on the afternoon of 9/11.

But you don't care about that. Just the words "secret spy program" make good political ammo against the Bush Admin, and that's all you really want anyway. Goon on ya.

[Blackwater]

Originally Posted by Delija

The Law:
If indeed the Second Amendment provides an absolute, constitutional protection for the right to bear arms in order to preserve the power of the people to resist government tyranny, then it must allow individuals to possess bazookas, torpedoes, SCUD missiles and even nuclear warheads, for they, like handguns, rifles and M-16s, are arms. [/font][/left]

This is the most ridicuous assumption I've ever heard, yet it continues to come up.
Do you think the US needs Nuclear Warheads for self-protection?
BTW - resorted to pulling your arguments directly from the ACLU Website huh?
http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html

As for Miller, he was a gangster and was charged because he didn't have a tax stamp.
http://www.rkba.org/research/miller/Miller.html

The tax stamp for 1934 NFA law was created after the FBI found it effective to use against controlled substances. Using tax stamps back then was a common back door to regulation.

http://www.herbalsmokecafe.com/marij...ax-stamps.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1937_Marihuana_Tax_Act

"I am da law"
Judge Dred

[griz]

This article says it all concerning any form of gun control:

http://www.chinookobserver.info/main...25&TM=11855.46

Fish & Feathers: With guns we are citizens, without them we are subjects

By Capt. RON MALAST

The age-old controversy of "gun control" has been argued for many years, but never with a satisfactory conclusion. Advocates of gun control believe that by taking weapons away from the general population, they put themselves in a safer position, In my opinion, nothing could be further from the truth.

When the public submits themselves to the restriction of having their guns taken away, in the interest of public safety, they are under a false assumption. To believe that criminals are going to abide by these rules and the government is going to protect the public is pure fantasy.

The government has its own reasons for not wanting armed citizens. Whether you agree or not, it's an interesting lesson in history.

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953 about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up an exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938. From 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others were exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissents were massacred.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to protect themselves were slaughtered.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians were killed.

Notice a pattern here? At least, 56 million defenseless people have been exterminated, in the 20th Century.

Twelve months after gun owners in Australia were forced to surrender their personal weapons (640,381 of them) by their own government, at a cost of 500 million to taxpayers, the results are in.

Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent.

Australia-wide assaults are up 8.6 percent.

Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent.

Seems like the "bad guys" forgot to turn in their guns.

This seems to be a trend in countries where gun control has taken weapons out of civilian hands. Why should criminals worry about recrimination, if they know there will be no armed resistance from their targeted victims.

Law biding citizens will turn in their guns so that they do not break the law and become criminals. Criminals do not give a damn and will break the law to reach any means. If the courts of this country would support the police and enforce existing gun laws the criminal element would be reduced considerably.

• As of 1992, for every 14 violent crimes (rape, murder etc.) committed in the U.S., one person went to prison.

As of 1992, average length of imprisonment for:

•Murder 10 years. Rape 7.6 years, aggravated assault 3.4 years

•In mid-1990's, criminals on parole or early release from prison committed about 5,000 murders, 17,000 rapes and 200,000 robberies a year.

•Americans use firearms to defend themselves from criminals at least 764,000 a year, according to surveys conducted by Galiup and the Los Angles Times.

•Washington, D.C. Enacted a virtual ban on handguns in 1976. Between 1976 and 1991, Washington, D.C.'s homicide rate rose 200 percent, while in the rest of the country it rose 12 percent.

•Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. Between 1987 and 1996 these changes occurred - in Florida the homicide rate dropped 36 percent; in the rest of the United States it dropped only 0.4 percent.

The figures speak for themselves.

- "Gun Control," by James Rucnco (www.justfacts.com/gun control.htm)

[robinsre]

^

Great post.

In these modern times of tanks, nuclear arms, and aerial bombardments firearm ownership may not stop us from being tyrannized by a dangerous government, but it sure as hell will make it harder.

When and if the time comes, the powers that be can hit me with an ICBM, they can drop a bomb on me from half a mile away, they can fire an artillery shell right into my humble apartment...but they will NOT round me up and send me to some sort of "internment camp"

I'll take a slim opportunity to succeed over no opportunity any day.