Federal Judge: Assault Weapons Not Protected by 2nd Amendment

[98Z]

Stan, you're too quick to try to argue, without fully reading what you're responding to... You might need to look into that issue that you have.

[stanc]

Bzzt. Wrong again, Hans. Reading comprehension is key.

Indeed. I was not careful enough in reading post #37.

I revised my reply.

[98Z]

Indeed. I was not careful enough in reading post #37.

I revised my reply.

Of course you did...

[BjornF16]

Yes, really. The Militia Act of 1792 (not 1903) describes the militia as originally conceived by the Founders.

Not quite.

At the time of the Constitutional Convention debates, service in militia for the various states was able bodied men aged 16-60 (varied slightly between states), not the age listed in Militia Acts of 1792.

To wit, from Anti-Federalist #29:

First, the personal liberty of every man, probably from sixteen to sixty years of age, may be destroyed by the power Congress have in organizing and governing of the militia. As militia they may be subjected to fines to any amount, levied in a military manner; they may be subjected to corporal punishments of the most disgraceful and humiliating kind; and to death itself, by the sentence of a court martial. To this our young men will be more immediately subjected, as a select militia, composed of them, will best answer the purposes of government.

But my point in referencing the 1903 Militia Act was to point out that the National Guard had not entirely replaced the militia as you asserted. The act allowed for non-NG "unorganized militia"...thus, the militia is alive and well.

In keeping with the OP, I leave the following (again courtesy of Scalia in DC v Heller):

All other post-Civil War 19th-century sources we have found concurred with Cooley. One example from each decade will convey the general flavor:

“[The purpose of the Second Amendment is] to secure a well-armed militia. . . . But a militia would be useless unless the citizens were enabled to exercise themselves in the use of warlike weapons. To preserve this privilege, and to secure to the people the ability to oppose themselves in military force against the usurpations of government, as well as against enemies from without, that government is forbidden by any law or proceeding to invade or destroy the right to keep and bear arms. . . . The clause is analogous to the one securing the freedom of speech and of the press. Freedom, not license, is secured; the fair use, not the libellous abuse, is protected.” J. Pomeroy, An Introduction to the Constitutional Law of the United States 152– 153 (1868) (hereinafter Pomeroy).

There it is again...purpose of 2A to oppose tyranny as well as mutual defense from external threats; and government is forbidden by and law to destroy the right to keep and bear arms...

[stanc]

Not quite.

At the time of the Constitutional Convention debates, service in militia for the various states was able bodied men aged 16-60 (varied slightly between states), not the age listed in Militia Acts of 1792.

So, you're trying to shift the discussion to how the various state militias were defined prior to adoption of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Federal militia standards. LOL.

But my point in referencing the 1903 Militia Act was to point out that the National Guard had not entirely replaced the militia as you asserted. The act allowed for non-NG "unorganized militia"...

Not sure why you're having so much difficulty with this. I never said the National Guard replaced the unorganized militia. I said it replaced the old State militias.

And what I said about the unorganized, or Reserve militia, is that it was not "everyone else" as you stated -- it was only able-bodied males 18-45 years old.

...thus, the militia is alive and well.

But not in the form originally conceived by the Founders in the Militia Act of 1792, wherein militia members are required by law to provide their own individual weapons.

An updated version of the 1792 law would mandate that militia members own an M4 carbine. That's significantly different than currently exists with the National Guard.

In keeping with the OP, I leave the following (again courtesy of Scalia in DC v Heller):

“[The purpose of the Second Amendment is] to secure a well-armed militia. . ."

Talk about irony. Whenever I've noted that is the stated purpose of the Second Amendment, people here give me a ton of grief. I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

[BjornF16]

So, you're trying to shift the discussion to how the various state militias were defined prior to adoption of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Federal militia standards. LOL.

Not sure why you're having such a difficult time with this...maybe it's all the meds.

The Constitutional Convention occurred in 1787. The Constitution was ratified in 1788. George Washington took office as President in 1789.

The environment that influenced and was known by the Founders, and then initially setup by the Founders was 1788 and earlier.

Stated another way for decrepit minds: 1792 was post Founding.

Post 1788, laws either began eroding what the Founders intended (as is the tendency of governments, as recognized by the Founders) or affirmed what the Founders intended.

So yes, it matters what the environment was at the time of the Constitutional Convention because this is what was foremost in their minds, with a mind to protect the future knowing the tendency of men and governments. This is the crux of "original intent".

[stanc]

Not sure why you're having such a difficult time with this...maybe it's all the meds.

The Constitutional Convention occurred in 1787. The Constitution was ratified in 1788. George Washington took office as President in 1789.

The environment that influenced and was known by the Founders, and then initially setup by the Founders was 1788 and earlier.

Stated another way for decrepit minds: 1792 was post Founding.

ROFL. Thanks. I needed a good laugh.

[CVCOBRA1]

Maybe a dozen.....