Federal Judge: Assault Weapons Not Protected by 2nd Amendment

[98Z]

Actually, I had intended to comment on it, but before I could do so, I was ordered to stay out of the thread. Thanks for giving me another chance to respond.


As originally defined by the Founders in the Militia Act of 1792, ...

I care about that, Stan - but I don't. Did you miss the part of what I stated earlier? Did you miss this part?

The law was updated in 2016 so it can’t be considered one of those seldom used archaic laws.

[stanc]

The militia, as originally conceived by the Founders, ceased to exist.

Not really...Militia Act of 1903:

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

Everyone else is the Reserve Militia (as understood by the Founders).

Wrong again. Even in the 1903 revision, "everyone else" is not the Reserve Militia. Only able-bodied males 18-45 years old.
No disabled males. No males younger than 18 or older than 45. No females of any age.

It was "we the people" as the Founders understood "we the people" to be...(and yes, by today's standards, bigoted).

By what math does approximately 20% of the population (i.e., able-bodied males 18-45) equate in your mind to "the" people???

If it were as you suggest, then why weren't members of the militia who turned age 46 required to relinquish their arms?

AFAIK, the law didn't say they had to turn in their arms. It just said they were no longer members of the Reserve (aka unorganized) militia.

[stanc]

So, the Founding Generation understood that the 2A applied to ALL peaceable citizens of the United States; not just to State Militia members.

Different subject. I was addressing who comprised the militia, not to whom the 2A applies. Try to keep up.

We'll keep dropping truth bombs...

Yeah, you're definitely bombing.

[stanc]

I care about that, Stan - but I don't. Did you miss the part of what I stated earlier? Did you miss this part?

No, I didn't miss it. But apparently you missed the sentence wherein I specifically acknowledged it:

The definition has since been revised, so the militia now includes able-bodied black, Hispanic, Asian, and other males between 17 and 45, and some females.

As defined by law, the militia is not now, and never has been, "we the people." The militia has always been only a small percentage (~20%) of the people.

[Sticks]

...

As defined by law, the militia is not now, and never has been, "we the people." The militia has always been only a small percentage (~20%) of the people.

"free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 only comprised/comprises 20% of the population in question?

[BjornF16]

Different subject. I was addressing who comprised the militia, not to whom the 2A applies. Try to keep up.

Not a different subject. Your premise is that the 2A only refers to a right of the militia to keep and bear arms and there is no other right for other citizens. My premise is that there are two components to the 2A; a prefatory clause (reason for the militia) and an operative clause (RKBA, which supports the prefatory clause). The militia clause does not restrict the RKBA clause.

There were NEVER any discussions or writings of the period that indicated that only active members of the militias (organized militia) had the RKBA. Rather, it was the entire citizenry who had RKBA, from which states would pull militia members.

Trying to limit the 2A to militia members only is an attempt by progressives to rewrite the narrative and implement gun control.

Scalia understood the nuances of the 2A as written, as did everyone of the period.

DC v Heller:

[FONT=&amp]Held:
[/FONT]1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretationof the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

[JASmith]

Not a different subject. Your premise is that the 2A only refers to a right of the militia to keep and bear arms and there is no other right for other citizens. My premise is that there are two components to the 2A; a prefatory clause (reason for the militia) and an operative clause (RKBA, which supports the prefatory clause). The militia clause does not restrict the RKBA clause.

There were NEVER any discussions or writings of the period that indicated that only active members of the militias (organized militia) had the RKBA. Rather, it was the entire citizenry who had RKBA, from which states would pull militia members.

Trying to limit the 2A to militia members only is an attempt by progressives to rewrite the narrative and implement gun control.

Scalia understood the nuances of the 2A as written, as did everyone of the period.

DC v Heller:

I am truly grateful for your having taken the time to document historical and current relevant writings about the 2A.

As much as I dislike his proclivity for bait & troll to provoke flame wars (get attention?) I thank Stan for causing the research to be done.

Nonetheless, we would all have been better served had he done the research in the first place rather than acting like an anti-gun troll.

[CVCOBRA1]

That's what happens when you use Wikipedia for your source, you make mistakes.

[BjornF16]

More from Scalia in DC v Heller:

In 1825, William Rawle, a prominent lawyer who had been a member of the Pennsylvania Assembly that ratified the Bill of Rights, published an influential treatise, which analyzed the Second Amendment as follows:

“The first [principle] is a declaration that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state; a proposition from which few will dissent. . . .

“The corollary, from the first position is, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

“The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.”

[BjornF16]

Scalia speaking from the grave to dispute Justice Stevens (from DC v Heller):

Joseph Story published his famous Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States in 1833. JUSTICE STEVENS suggests that “[t]here is not so much as a whisper” in Story’s explanation of the Second Amendment that favors the individual-rights view. [FONT=&amp]Post[/FONT], at 34. That is wrong. Story explained that the English Bill of Rights had also included a “right to bear arms,” a right that, as we have discussed, had nothing to do with militia service. 3 Story §1858. He then equated the English right with the Second Amendment:

[INDENT]Ҥ1891. A similar provision [to the Second Amendment] in favour of protestants (for to them it is confined) is to be found in the bill of rights of 1688,
it being declared, ‘that the subjects, which are protestants, may have arms for their defence suitable to their condition, and as allowed by law.’
But under various pretences the effect of this provision has been greatly narrowed; and it is at present in England more nominal than real, as a
defensive privilege.” (Footnotes omitted.)

[/INDENT]
This comparison to the Declaration of Right would not make sense if the Second Amendment right was the right to use a gun in a militia, which was plainly not what the English right protected. As the Tennessee Supreme Court recognized 38 years after Story wrote his Commentaries, “[t]he passage from Story, shows clearly that this right was intended . . . and was guaranteed to, and to be exercised and enjoyed by the citizen as such, and not by him as a soldier, or in defense solely of his political rights.” Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn. 165, 183 (1871).

Story’s Commentaries also cite as support Tucker and Rawle, both of whom clearly viewed the right as unconnected to militia service. See 3 Story §1890, n. 2; §1891, n. 3. In addition, in a shorter 1840 work Story wrote: “One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offence to keep arms, and by substituting a regular army in the stead of a resort to the militia.” A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States §450 (reprinted in 1986).

[BjornF16]

DC v Heller, cont'd:

In Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846), the Georgia Supreme Court construed the Second Amendment as protecting the “natural right of self-defence” and therefore struck down a ban on carrying pistols openly.

“The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, re-established by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!”

But of course, I'm sure some think they know better than the 1846 justices...

[stanc]

Different subject. I was addressing who comprised the militia, not to whom the 2A applies.

Not a different subject. Your premise is that the 2A only refers to a right of the militia to keep and bear arms and there is no other right for other citizens.

:confused: In which post(s) of mine in this thread do you imagine I said anything remotely like that?

[stanc]

"free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 only comprised/comprises 20% of the population in question?

Roughly 20%, yes. I did a very quick and dirty count of recent census figures, and males 18-45 were approximately 20% of the total. Could be off by a few percentage points, though.

I figure that the percentage probably wasn't much different in the late 18th century.

[JASmith]

When one takes onto account the increase in life span ovever the past 125 years, the percentage of folks in that age group has probably declined.

Nonetheless, that comments are a distraction from the topic suggested by the thread title.

[Sticks]

Roughly 20%, yes. I did a very quick and dirty count of recent census figures, and males 18-45 were approximately 20% of the total. Could be off by a few percentage points, though.

I figure that the percentage probably wasn't much different in the late 18th century.

Please show me your math. You are also using current numbers? Baby boomers starting to die off - that is a hit to the numbers.

[stanc]

Please show me your math.

No can do. I mentally added the number of 18-45 males, then divided that by the total number of males and females.
It came out to a little under 18%, which I bumped up to 20% because it was, as I a said, a quick and dirty calculation.

You are also using current numbers? Baby boomers starting to die off - that is a hit to the numbers.

Perhaps. But, I doubt the percentage would've strayed greatly over the years. I'd be surprised if it ever got up to 25%.
In any case, don't get hung up on the 20% figure. The point is that the militia was never ALL of the people, just a few.

[98Z]

The point is that the militia was never ALL of the people, just a few.

"The militia" was ALL of the people in that age bracket/criteria, civilians included.

[stanc]

When one takes onto account the increase in life span ovever the past 125 years, the percentage of folks in that age group has probably declined.

Nonetheless, that comments are a distraction from the topic suggested by the thread title.

True. Blame the guys who started the distraction by erroneously posting that "everyone else is the Reserve Militia" and "the people are the militia."

[stanc]

"The militia" was ALL of the people in that age bracket/criteria, civilians included.

LOL. Okay.

[98Z]

Bzzzzt. Wrong again, Hans.

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

ALL of the people in that age bracket/criteria, civilians included.