IS the term "The People" in the second amendment different

If Hillary had been elected (and thus had the opportunity to appoint three Supreme Court justices) Heller likely would have been reversed.

 

"This appeal concerns the constitutionality of the Village of Morton Grove's Ordinance No. 81-11, which prohibits the possession of handguns within the Village's borders. The district court held that the Ordinance was constitutional. We affirm.... Construing this language according to its plain meaning, it seems clear that the right to bear arms is inextricably connected to the preservation of a militia. This is precisely the manner in which the Supreme Court interpreted the second amendment in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 59 S.Ct. 816, 83 L.Ed. 1206 (1939), the only Supreme Court case specifically addressing that amendment's scope. There the Court held that the right to keep and bear arms extends only to those arms which are necessary to maintain a well regulated militia.... Under the controlling authority of Miller we conclude that the right to keep and bear handguns is not guaranteed by the second amendment."
https://casetext.com/case/quilici-v-village-of-morton-grove

So why did the court find that per Miller a ban on handguns is constitutional? Is it because handguns are not suitable for use in a militia? Or is it because privately owned handguns are not utilized in a militia?

 

and that would have been a bigger disaster for the democrats than Dobbs was for the GOP. Heller helped Obama get elected: lots of pro gun union voters decided to vote for Obama because of Heller

 

Decided December 6, 1982. As Amended December 10, 1982. Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied March 2, 1983.

because some appellate judges don't follow the constitution but now that the Supreme court has eviscerated that idiocy, they will have to

 

This is a pre-Heller circuit court decision which turned on the 9th amendment, son.

Summary
holding that the Ninth Amendment is not violated by a gun control ordinance because the Supreme Court has never held that any specific right, including the right to bear arms, is protected by the Ninth Amendment

As handguns unquestionably have a reasonable relationship to the efficacy of a well-regulated militia, it lied to itself.

 

If FDR had actually demanded the courts enforce Miller, all US citizens of age could have bought and owned BAR rifles, and Thompson SMGs because those were weapons that gangsters STOLE from Police and National Guard Armories and thus were clearly relevant to the militia

 

So a handgun in the hands of a mass murderer has a reasonable relationship to the efficacy of a well-regulated militia? LOL.

 

that's as silly and frivolous as saying that the right of free speech allows a military officer to tell the Russians our military secrets or that the right of assembly allows a convicted sex offender to hang out in a grade school locker room or toilet

 

All I see here is you trying to avoid the truth.
Trying.

 

The collective right nonsense was first argued by white supremacists in connection with the ku Klux Klan in the late 1800s because they wanted to deny free slaves guns so they couldn't shoot Klan Members that sought to lynch them.

Call anybody who uses this argument a KKK supporter

https://cdn0.thetruthaboutguns.com/...06/the-racist-origins-of-us-gun-control-2.pdf

 

Yeah gun control is racist dating all the way back to 1640 in Virginia where race based gun bans were enacted.

I'd go as far as to say gun control is strictly about white supremacy.

 

East too mostly targeted at Black people. Gun control is white supremacy.

 

Rights of "The People" are subject to regulation
Rights of a Person may not except in very limited circumstances.

Thus the use of "The People" and "Person" are appropriately used in the Constitution.

 

Speech is subject to regulation
Police may search w/o a warrant with the evidence of a crime in process (regulation)

Trying to find meaning by using your own definitions doesn't change reality.

 

Then why use the term "person" in the fifth?

are you saying the framers couldn't speak English?

 

irrelevant and because that fits better

so tell me=what do you think the second amendment means?

 

So Hilary and any supreme Court justices she would have appointed would have been anti Constitution?

I wonder why she wasn't elected.

 

Why use the people in the first, and forth?

Are you only collectively secure in your person or papers?

I get why the ku Klux Klan wants that who are the people that argued the people are collective in the second amendment only.

Is your motivation the same?

 

For those curious (you will see why person is used here) the fifth says as follows

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

"People" doesn't work there

 

It's one of those frivolous dilatory arguments that are not given any credence in this area of constitutional law

 

So we can regulate that you must be Catholic and you must say the apostles creed?

If it's subject to regulation then it always is.

 

when is speech subject to regulation at a federal level?
and firearms are subject to all sorts of regulations that aren't unconstitutional-mainly the use of firearms.

you seem unable to understand the difference between possession vs use for both freedoms

 

It's the ku Klux Klan argument.

 

so tell us what your learned view of the second amendment is. mine is well known on this forum

 

ah yes, I thought I smelled something. thanks