DC is controlled by congress and is thus under the power of the bill of rights. The states right to form militias is already in the contitution. If thats all it said there would be no point. The point of it is to keep the militias intact by not allowing "the people" to lose their arms. "A well educated voting public, being necessary to the security of a republic, the right of the people to keep and bear books shall not be infringed" Translated: Point 1 We need a militia Point 2 In order to keep it we will give the people to keep and bear arms.
Interesting take, but I don't think the courts will buy it either. Cases v. United States, 131 F. 2d 916, 922 (1st Cir. 1942) Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55, 65 n.8 (1980) Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3d 98 (9th Cir.) United States v. Gomez, 92 F.3d 770, 775 n.7 (9th Cir. 1996)
(4:55:57 PM) Nomar: in the DC gun ban case (4:56:09 PM) Nomar: all these liberals are mouthing off about the "militia" clause of the 2nd amendment (4:56:33 PM) Nomar: kindly inform them that all able bodied males aged 17-45 are members of the reserve militia (4:56:41 PM) Nomar: statutorily defined in the militia act of 1903 (4:57:06 PM) Nomar: the DC gun ban directly infringes on the right of the militia members in DC to bear arms (4:57:11 PM) Nomar: thus making it unconstitutional (4:57:12 PM) Nomar: K THX
I think only college graduates or current/former military should be able to have guns! Yay for helping education!
Nope, that is why we should be allowed to have assault rifles, mortars, anti-tank rockets, and shoulder fired surface to air missiles. The handguns are for the lesser threats like muggers that don't require bringing out the big guns.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point here, but are you really arguing that states are not bound by the Constitution and more directly in this instance, the Bill of Rights? Do you believe a state government can pass a law requiring all citizens to be Catholic? After all, freedom of religion is granted by the Bill of Rights and would therefore not impact the states ability to legislate by your example. Just in case that is what you believe, please reference Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States:
In Japan it works out quite well. In fact some of the most creative murders seem to come from that country.
Madmax and justyanks: understood and agree, to a degree. I was interpreting, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," to bar federal action infringing upon that right of the state to bear arms. Not in the broader sense of justyanx's all-Catholic example, but specifically in regards to the 2nd amendment. From their initial discussion, it does appear the justices may be leaning towards the individual's right. Not too big a surprise with the makeup of the current court, I guess. http://news.lp.findlaw.com/ap/a/w/1154//03-18-2008/20080318102001_23.html
This is what I do not understand. A militia is, according to dictionary.com: mi·li·tia /mɪˈlɪʃə/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mi-lish-uh] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies. 2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers. 3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service. 4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government. I see nothing in that definition that shows that a militia must necessarily, or in the case of 4. above should be run by the state. While I agree that fighting off the US military is a silly notion today, it does not follow that the Framers intent was to have all guns controlled by the state.
Yeah, his point is that if I have a different interpretation of the Constitution than he does on this issue, then I hate the Constitution. Brilliant point. I'll say again...none of these rights are "all in" or "all out." There are shades along the way. I'm not suggesting you don't have a right to your musket. Pretending that the Constitution is entirely objective with no subjective interpretation is to live in a fantasy land that doesn't exist. The Constitution has been re-interpreted in far more significant ways than what this handgun ban presents.
Absolutely right. I agree. The intent was to secure liberties from a government....remember at the time, there was great debate over whether they should be a standing army, at all! Many saw it as the hallmark of tyranny. That ship has long since sailed. If the purpose of the Second Amendment is to secure ourselves from the government...and I agree with you, that seems to be the reasoning...then that purpose has been obviated for quite some time now.
As has been pointed out, according to the Militia Act of 1903, the militia... [rquoter] presently consist of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who are not members of the National Guard or Naval Militia. (that is, anyone who would be eligible for the draft) [/rquoter] When you talk about the government making adjustments to the way in which the Bill of Rights applies - reinterpreting the various provisions - I appreciate that that is both logical and how things work. I can buy that. When you talk about just completely ignoring provisions, you want to do something that is both dangerous and wrong. I promise you I can find people that say the 4th amendment is no longer relevant so we should just ignore it. What if they unilaterally decided to excise whatever portions of the Bill of Rights that got in their way? It is a constitutionally protected right. The Bill of Rights isn't a buffet where you can pick and choose which provisions you want and which ones you are not interested in. If it really bothers you so much, amend the Constitution. That is the appropriate and legal way to get what you want. But deciding that a provision no longer applies because you don't think is should? Would you do that with any other amendment?
Just to clarify...are you advocating that the USSC should rule that individuals don't have the right to own guns? Are you really advocating that the government should take my guns from me?
Great. I qualify. I am draft eligible. So I am a member of the militia. I continue cleaning my guns from my trip to the range now.
