History 102: Which people form part of a well-regulated militia?

The courts are in charge of enforcing people's rights. But people have rights even if the courts allow those rights to be violated.

The fact that progressives make ridiculous arguments does not mean that their position ever has any legitimacy.

The "collective Second Amendment" nonsense was nonsense from the first moment that FDR uttered it.

Why would I need to counter it?

The argument didn't even exist when the Cruikshank case was heard. No one spouted "collective Second Amendment" nonsense until FDR.

The courts may not have repudiated FDR until Heller, but the "collective Second Amendment" argument was goofy nonsense from the moment that FDR first uttered it.

Actually inherent rights transcend all law. All people have all inherent rights. That's why those rights are inherent.

 

Your question is a loaded question and requires, in my view, a robust response, so that's what I will do (and you should know me better by now to ask for simple answers when your question beckons for a nuanced reply.)

So....Is your question's premise valid? Your premise suggests that framer intent is the only valid metric for constitutional arbitration insfor as what the document means, or doesn't mean, or should or shouldn't mean, etc. The Constitution is clear cut in places, not so much in others, and there is where the SC comes in, to tell us what it means where it is ambiguous. Framer intent course, is the starting point, but not always the end point, or rather, depending on who is making the determination.

Frankly, I think whether we should use that as a metric depends on a number of things:

Do the societal needs of the late 18th century comport to that of today? They might in some instances, they might not in others. I think we should use 'framer intent' where the outcome is harmonious with societal needs of modernity. But, given the fact that modernity is far more nuanced and complex than the world of the late 18th century, this won't always be true. So, the metric should be applied only where it is logical.

You've made an assumption and so first we must address the overall veracity and scope your question's assumed premise.

The question you're asking delves into the interpretation of the United States Constitution and the intentions of its framers, particularly regarding the Commerce Clause and its relationship to the Second and Tenth Amendments. The premise of this question is complex, and while it's valid to explore, there are several nuances to consider:

The framers of the Constitution lived in a very different era, with distinct concerns and perspectives, especially regarding the role of the federal government and states' rights. Their understanding of commerce and firearms was rooted in 18th-century contexts, which were quite different from those during FDR's time or today.

The Commerce Clause was intended to allow Congress to regulate interstate commerce. The framers likely saw this as a way to promote economic integration and prevent trade conflicts between states. However, whether they intended this clause to circumvent other constitutional provisions is debatable and not explicitly documented. If that weren't true, we wouldn't be having this debate, eh?

The Second Amendment's original intent has been a subject of significant debate. Some argue it was meant to ensure the state's ability to maintain militias, while others believe it was intended to protect an individual's right to bear arms. Again, that argument wasn't 100% a settled argument until Heller.

The Tenth Amendment reserves to the states all powers not delegated to the federal government. The balance of power between the federal government and the states has been a recurring theme in constitutional interpretation.

The Constitution has been interpreted in various ways over time, adapting to changing contexts and societal needs. The way the Commerce Clause, the Second Amendment, and the Tenth Amendment have been interpreted has evolved, particularly in response to issues like gun control.

FDR's administration used the Commerce Clause as a legal basis for federal gun control legislation. However, whether this was seen as an 'end around' the Second and Tenth Amendments is more a matter of interpretation and debate rather than a clear-cut historical fact.

So, I'll sum it up this way: while your question raises a valid point of inquiry, I personally don't believe that the answer is straightforward. We have seen how it involves various interpretations of historical intent, constitutional law, and the evolution of legal doctrine over time. The framers' original intentions, especially concerning issues like gun control that have significantly evolved in the public and legal spheres, and thus it can be difficult to ascertain with absolute certainty and then there is the question of modernity; should we even be concerned about framer intent on this particular subject? Some justices think so, others don't, and all that really matters who controls the court. Right now, the right does, so you shouldn't have to worry that much.

 

You can 'transcend' until Armageddon, but without a law, either in code or case, or a SCOTUS ruling, your philosophical transcendence will have no force.

You see, 'force' is the thing, not philosophy.

 

the proper thing for FDR to have done is demand an amendment to the constitution. THERE WAS NO DEBATE over the fact that ALL the founders saw gun ownership as a fundamental right. THERE WAS NO DEBATE that the GUN LAWS were a STATE ISSUE

btw you never actually answered my question in all the chaff

 

"there was no debate' doesn't settle the point in law.

Why? Because the 1975 Wash DC ban didn't become an issue until Heller, over 30 years later. So your point cannot possibly be true.

You asked me if I knew framer intent, and I gave you my response on that point.

Read it again.

 

Yeah one of the most idiotic and dishonest arguments I constantly see is that the "individual interpretation" did not come about until recently". that is because it was not until FDR pissed all over the tenth and second amendments and even then, few people could afford machine guns so it didn't cause widespread consternation. When Democrats proved that they saw gun rights as something worth trampling on in order to pretend they were doing something about crime (late 60s onward), the obvious correct interpretation had to be raised

 

the framers' intent is obvious, the federal government was never intended to have any gun control power

 

And you base that sentiment on what?

Besides, I'm not real keen on 'framer intent', given that many of the framers owned slaves, given they viewed blacks as 3/5ths of a human being for the census.

Clearly you missed the relevant points in my original reply.

 

You mischaracterize my argument. i said that it wasn't a 100% settled argument until Heller.

There is no way around that fact. If that weren't true, Heller wouldn't have been necessary.

But even Heller says the right isn't absolute.

And sooner or later, Bruen will be reversed, it's unworkable.

 

you keep confusing what the second amendment is-it is a negative restriction on the government as opposed to what citizens can do. saying the negative restriction is limited demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the dynamics of government powers and what individual rights. Bruen will be modified, however, the entire federal gun control scheme based on the fraudulent expansion of the commerce clause, must be erased

 

Your argument doesn't negate the fact that the issue wasn't settled until Heller.

If that were not true, then Heller wouldn't have been needed.

You see, there is no way around that fact.

 

I have always noted that we have had much dishonesty from Democrats and their lapdog judges. The fact is-there is no valid argument to support their use of the commerce clause as a gun control jurisdictional foundation that is superior to the second and tenth amendments. And none of you gun banners can make a rational argument to that effect

 

I gave you my point, my only point, and you can't refute it.

AS for your concern over FDR, the 10th, that's all stuff for lawyers and courts to argue over, which they have, for decades.

Some might ask if you want some cheese with your whine, but I won't.

I'm not going to apologize for those who want to ban machine guns, or even guns that are nothing more than scary looking, because they promote a sicko gun worshiping culture, polluting the minds of children, as we see them in the media -- children and family posing with AR 15s (or whatever) as if this is a healthy America. No, this is an America gone raving sicko mad, we have more gun deaths per capita than any other country in the western developed regions, and if more guns are supposed to make us safer, then we should be the safest country on earth. Which, as the data shows, among the western developed countries, America is the least safest.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/

Clearly there is an error in the gun worshipper's logic.

Excuse me for not sharing your point of view.

There was a time in the frontier days, when the second amendment was the right thing to do, but I daresay those romantic notions are fantasy now.

 

your posts are short on legal reasoning and long in cultural loathing. tell us, can you honestly claim the founders intended the commerce clause to serve as a jurisdictional basis to ban some bearable firearms?

I get the fact that you despise lawful gun ownership and the way avid gun owners vote generally. That is the only thing we can assume from your comments about those pictures of lawful people owning legal firearms. I find those people far more supportive of our rights that the lefties who want to ban guns because they don't like the fact we vote against the creeping crud of collectivist authoritarianism

Oh BTW the gun deaths that I think you only pretend to care about, are far more likely to be the product of your side's political adherents than mine. People such as Thomas Massie aren't the ones causing most of the gunshot homicides in the USA.

 

I addressed that point, clearly you are not paying attention.

Well, your characterization is false. If gun owners behaved like reasonable people, that would be fine. But, gun worship is sick.

Well, your characterization is false. If gun owners behaved like reasonable people, that would be fine. But, gun porn is sick.

It just is, and it's like that famous judge's attempt to define pornography,. 'I can't define it, but I know it when I see it'.

Gun porn is legal, as sex porn is legal, but taken to extremes it is sick, and sick is sick, no matter how you slice it.

If you are proud of it, fine, but I'm not.

Speculation and irrelevant. The stats speak for themselves.

 

gun worship WTF that is, is not harming anyone. it's not a crime and since you have absolutely no understanding of gun culture, what most people on my side "worship" is freedom and our rights, not guns. But it proves again what i have said about your side-you hate the pro gun culture, not the violent criminals who cause most of the problems with firearms use

what is "gun porn" and why is it "sick"/ Gun owners who don't act reasonably are criminals. those who oppose the sick attempts to rape the constitution and disarm honest people are patriots.

 

Whatever the **** your argument is, it's bullshit because the gun culture has resulted in more deaths per capita than other western countries.

That's all I need to know.

You got a conservative court now, but that won't last forever.

 

well here is the problem-you consider the gun culture to be a monolithic movement where you lump criminals with lawful gun owners and your erroneous claims suggest that what really bothers you is not criminals with guns but rather lawful gun owners who don't buy into the leftist agenda you push.

what exactly is "gun porn"? seems to me that you hate gun magazines or gun literature and you dishonestly call it "porn" which once again demonstrates the far left hatred of lawful gun ownership and gun owners

your silly argument that lawful gun owners are causing all these homicides is not accurate. the vast majority of homicides with guns are perpetrated by felons or those who are close associates of felons.

 

No, I don't. But, sometimes you do have to toss the baby with the bathwater, if there is no way to separate the two.

 

but in your case, it's the baby you want to kill and only pretend it's the bathwater. Your litany of posts proves lawful gun ownership and honest gun owners is what you attack, not criminals

 

Well, if they are inconvenienced a little, so a few lives will be saved, I'm not losing any sleep over it.

You are inconvenienced by having to get a driver's license.

Does requiring driver's licenses save lives? There is no real way to tell, (though there are reports they do save lives) but the argument for them is more compelling than the argument against.

And I should think it's a similar argument for licensing the owning and operating of firearms.

And don't give me any crap about one is a right and the other isn't.

Right or no right, the principle is the same.

And that is why I'm not losing any sleep over it.

 

you gun banners always tell us that we ought to be inconvenienced a little so you all can pretend you can do something useful. In reality, your posts demonstrate a rather malignant hatred of gun owners and inconveniencing us is your main goal, and the good news is this-we keep winning in the courts and people like you are continuing to prove you are haters of our constitution and eventually will be seen as enemies of our rights

and guess what-you cannot achieve your victim disarmament wet dreams without the existence of men with guns willing to do your dirty work

 

Gun owners ALREADY are far more inconveniences than drivers. Every gun we buy requires an FBI check on the purchasers. Many states automatically renew DL's for safe drivers. Some states even require waiting periods before talking possession of the gun.

Compare and contrast the number of people killed in traffic accidents vs gun deaths.

Similar? Maybe is a nebulous sort of way, but nor in s manner requiring additional bureaucracy for little gain.

Nope, there's no commonality.

 

It might be a good idea, but it's already been proven that it will get abused by the government.

 

plus there is no valid constitutional authority for those idiotic inconveniences. It is hard to believe that those who constantly attack lawful gun owners and try to claim they are responsible for all the crime, are interested in something more benign than harassing gun owners