The same place it delegates the power for the possession, ownership... etc... of ANY private property (cars, homes, businesses...). Article 1, Section 8. But that is off topic here. If you want to respond to THIS thread, you will need to start with a more difficult matter: the fact that the 2nd A, AS WRITTEN, in and of itself appears to implicitly establish a condition by which "arms" (however you interpret the term) MAY be regulated. In other words, what happens when "a well regulated militia" is NOT "necessary to the security of a free state". As is the case today. That would be the only controversial question this thread posses. The rest is just factual background.
can you just cut the evasive bullshit and answer this question WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION WAS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DELEGATED ANY PROPER, I repeat PROPER power to interfere with the arms owned, possessed, used, borne, kept, etc by PRIVATE citizens
THAT is the topic of this thread. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18 !!!!! Is that what you do with your students? Just repeat the same already-answered question over and over until you are sure that your indoctrination has set in? Well... that doesn't work in a world that doesn't depend on YOU signing off on their grades. It has been several decades since I left academia to pursue more "profitable" endeavors. But I'm pretty sure you are the exception and not the norm.
fail-NONE OF THE DEMOCRAT crafted gun control schemes even attempted use clause 18 because even they know that such a basis of jurisdiction wouldn't even get by the FDR Lapdog court. You have been edified dozens of times that clause 18 fails because there is not even an implied power for it to reference when it comes to restricting the arms of private citizens. can you find ONE law review article or ONE federal court case that says that clause 18 empowers the federal government to impose gun control on private citizens
Ah! So you already KNEW the answer to your question. I'm sure there are many parts of the Constitution (like the commerce clause) that justify gun control. INCLUDING Article 8, Section 1, Clause 18. As for me, I couldn't care less. Human Rights trump ANY constitution. And the right to life trumps them all. Anyway... not the topic of this thread. And since you have no response to my arguments that ARE the topic, all I can say is... Thanks for playing!
so we both know you cannot cite any part of the constitution that even hints at a gun control power. and human rights include the right of self defense-something that the anti gun left despises. Not even the most devoted FDR fan boys will admit that the founders intended the commerce clause to allow the sort of nonsense that the FDR administration cooked up
He just told me that the supreme Court isn't interested in facts and that they legislate. Wishful thinking mixed with profound ignorance.
As the OP shows, the 2nd A itself does. FDR? Isn't he... dead? Are you feeling ok? Why are you attacking a dead President?
all the 2A does is negatively restrict the federal government from acting in an area it never had any power to begin with. the left constantly attacks the founders and pretends our rights are suspect because some founders owned slaves
True. At least so long as a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. Don't blame me. That's what the Amendment itself says. Wait... "negatively restrict"? Does the double-negative mean "allow"?
so you are pretending that if YOU decide we no longer need a well regulated militia (which may well be our armed forces) you can claim no one needs to own guns? this fails on two fronts 1) the supreme court has already rejected your bogus interpretation and 2) the federal government has no proper power to regulate firearms. You might say that they do, due to the FDR era commerce clause expansion and then I will note that Heller is just as valid. Your argument loses either way
Huh? Where did I claim any of that? I believe no one needs to own guns, but not for that idiotic reason. Falsely ascribing made-up statements to me only highlights your lack of real arguments. I don't decide anything. If we don't need a well-regulated militia, then there is no need to keep and bear arms. If we do need one, then we do. My personal opinion is that we don't but, either way and as I have said again and again, that has NOTHING to do with owning guns or not.
no one supports your claim. the need to keep and bear arms is still a necessity. if you don't think the second amendment matters than try to repeal it, and even if it was repealed, there still is no proper power under Article One Section Eight for the federal government to have ANY jurisdiction over privately owned firearms
Only the most prominent historians, linguists and the fact that it's what the 2nd A literally SAYS support my claim. Oh... you mean THAT. Well... good luck making that argument to any informed American who understands the role of the Military today. But I don't care. This thread is about what the Amendment says. Why in the world would anybody waste their time doing that? It would be like spending time or effort to repeal the 3rd A. And they are both equally irrelevant today.
no they don't. even well known liberal scholars such as William Van Alstyne, Sanford Levinson and Akhil Reed Amar all claim it is an individual right that is not based on militia service or even potential militia service. Start naming those legal scholars who support you. BTW the Heller decision saw all the justices either agreeing to, or not disputing the individual rights interpretation
https://guncite.com/journals/bk-ufire.html [A]lmost all the qualified historians and constitutional-law scholars who have studied the subject [concur]. The overwhelming weight of authority affirms that the Second Amendment establishes an individual right to bear arms, which is not dependent upon joining something like the National Guard. It goes without saying that like all constitutional rights, the right to keep and bear arms is subject to reasonable regulation consistent with its purposes.[3] Research conducted through the 1980s has led legal scholars and historians to conclude, sometimes reluctantly, but with virtual unanimity, that there is no tenable textual or historical argument against a broad individual right view of the Second Amendment.[4](p.1142)
After all these pages of discussion in this and other threads you STILL don't get the point. Owning a gun can be as much an individual right as owning shoes. It's just NOT addressed by the 2nd A, as is demonstrated in the thread on that topic. Which, BTW, is not this one. It's http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/english-102-to-keep-and-bear-arms.586083/
Here you go... Unfortunately you asked your question in the wrong thread. So I moved it here where the linguistic structure of the 2nd A is discussed. Please read the OP, and let me know if you have any further questions. Oh, BTW, as for the commas. That argument hasn't been raised in decades. Because it has been made clear to everybody that in the 18th century, commas were used different than we use them today. Since most documents were read aloud (no Xerox copies), the commas simply signaled to the person reading where to pause so they could breath.
I posted it in the correct thread, you just prefer to try to deflect. And you can't even do that right as you do not engage in the exercise despite your many, repeated, protests and deflections in two threads now. Again: See the sources cited in Heller, which are grammar textbooks contemporaneous with the founding. Argue with them in the 1790s and early 1800s, not me. Better get out the wayback machine.
