The answer is NO. And, in case you're ALSO wondering, here is a list of other things the Constitution did not grant the federal government power (at least not explicitly) to restrict usage, ownership etc, by private citizens: -The right to eat seafood -The right to sleep on the left side of your bed -The right to keep and bear pants... ALL of them fundamental rights that preceded the Constitution, BTW...
That is simply obvious and self evident nonsense. If a well regulated militia was only military why does the constitution single out the military, especially army, with heavy restrictions as being separate for the state militias????
A well regulated militia is mot definitely military. It's what the word "militia" means! I guess they could be used to rebuild bridges and hand out toilet paper after a hurricane.... but that doesn't remove the fact that they are military organizations. Irrelevant to my point but If I had to guess I'd say that was because the state militias were STATE militias. Congress would only decide which"...Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States". Probably that wouldn't include the part that would not meet whatever standards they wished to set. This is a weird question, probably because it is based on the premise that militias may not be military. which is very odd.
Your argument, prove u8nsound, more than two decades ago. At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989) (hereinafter Oxford). When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose—confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (199 , in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, Justice Ginsburg wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment … indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry … upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose … of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ” Id., at 143 (dissenting opinion) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 214 (6th ed. 199). We think that Justice Ginsburg accurately captured the natural meaning of “bear arms.” Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of “offensive or defensive action,” it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization. From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that “bear arms” had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. The most prominent examples are those most relevant to the Second Amendment : Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” or “bear arms in defense of himself and the state.” 8 It is clear from those formulations that “bear arms” did not refer only to carrying a weapon in an organized military unit. Justice James Wilson interpreted the Pennsylvania Constitution’s arms-bearing right, for example, as a recognition of the natural right of defense “of one’s person or house”—what he called the law of “self preservation.” 2 Collected Works of James Wilson 1142, and n. x (K. Hall & M. Hall eds. 2007) (citing Pa. Const., Art. IX, §21 (1790)); see also T. Walker, Introduction to American Law 198 (1837) (“Thus the right of self-defence [is] guaranteed by the [Ohio] constitution”); see also id., at 157 (equating Second Amendment with that provision of the Ohio Constitution). That was also the interpretation of those state constitutional provisions adopted by pre-Civil War state courts.9 These provisions demonstrate—again, in the most analogous linguistic context—that “bear arms” was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia. The phrase “bear Arms” also had at the time of the founding an idiomatic meaning that was significantly different from its natural meaning: “to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight” or “to wage war.” See Linguists’ Brief 18; post, at 11 (Stevens, J., dissenting). But it unequivocally bore that idiomatic meaning only when followed by the preposition “against,” which was in turn followed by the target of the hostilities. See 2 Oxford 21. (That is how, for example, our Declaration of Independence ¶28, used the phrase: “He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country … .”) Every example given by petitioners’ amici for the idiomatic meaning of “bear arms” from the founding period either includes the preposition “against” or is not clearly idiomatic. See Linguists’ Brief 18–23. Without the preposition, “bear arms” normally meant (as it continues to mean today) what Justice Ginsburg’s opinion in Muscarello said. In any event, the meaning of “bear arms” that petitioners and Justice Stevens propose is not even the (sometimes) idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a hybrid definition, whereby “bear arms” connotes the actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia. No dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried that meaning at the time of the founding. But it is easy to see why petitioners and the dissent are driven to the hybrid definition. Giving “bear Arms” its idiomatic meaning would cause the protected right to consist of the right to be a soldier or to wage war—an absurdity that no commentator has ever endorsed. See L. Levy, Origins of the Bill of Rights 135 (1999). Worse still, the phrase “keep and bear Arms” would be incoherent. The word “Arms” would have two different meanings at once: “weapons” (as the object of “keep”) and (as the object of “bear”) one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying “He filled and kicked the bucket” to mean “He filled the bucket and died.” Grotesque. Petitioners justify their limitation of “bear arms” to the military context by pointing out the unremarkable fact that it was often used in that context—the same mistake they made with respect to “keep arms.” It is especially unremarkable that the phrase was often used in a military context in the federal legal sources (such as records of congressional debate) that have been the focus of petitioners’ inquiry. Those sources would have had little occasion to use it except in discussions about the standing army and the militia. And the phrases used primarily in those military discussions include not only “bear arms” but also “carry arms,” “possess arms,” and “have arms”—though no one thinks that those other phrases also had special military meanings. See Barnett, Was the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Conditioned on Service in an Organized Militia?, 83 Tex. L. Rev. 237, 261 (2004). The common references to those “fit to bear arms” in congressional discussions about the militia are matched by use of the same phrase in the few nonmilitary federal contexts where the concept would be relevant. See, e.g., 30 Journals of Continental Congress 349–351 (J. Fitzpatrick ed. 1934). Other legal sources frequently used “bear arms” in nonmilitary contexts.10 Cunningham’s legal dictionary, cited above, gave as an example of its usage a sentence unrelated to military affairs (“Servants and labourers shall use bows and arrows on Sundays, &c. and not bear other arms”). And if one looks beyond legal sources, “bear arms” was frequently used in nonmilitary contexts. See Cramer & Olson, What Did “Bear Arms” Mean in the Second Amendment ?, 6 Georgetown J. L. & Pub. Pol’y (forthcoming Sept. 200, online at http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1086176 (as visited June 24, 2008, and available in Clerk of Court’s case file) (identifying numerous nonmilitary uses of “bear arms” from the founding period). Justice Stevens points to a study by amici supposedly showing that the phrase “bear arms” was most frequently used in the military context. See post, at 12–13, n. 9; Linguists’ Brief 24. Of course, as we have said, the fact that the phrase was commonly used in a particular context does not show that it is limited to that context, and, in any event, we have given many sources where the phrase was used in nonmilitary contexts. Moreover, the study’s collection appears to include (who knows how many times) the idiomatic phrase “bear arms against,” which is irrelevant. The amici also dismiss examples such as “ ‘bear arms … for the purpose of killing game’ ” because those uses are “expressly qualified.” Linguists’ Brief 24. (Justice Stevens uses the same excuse for dismissing the state constitutional provisions analogous to the Second Amendment that identify private-use purposes for which the individual right can be asserted. See post, at 12.) That analysis is faulty. A purposive qualifying phrase that contradicts the word or phrase it modifies is unknown this side of the looking glass (except, apparently, in some courses on Linguistics). If “bear arms” means, as we think, simply the carrying of arms, a modifier can limit the purpose of the carriage (“for the purpose of self-defense” or “to make war against the King”). But if “bear arms” means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply cannot add “for the purpose of killing game.” The right “to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game” is worthy of the mad hatter. Thus, these purposive qualifying phrases positively establish that “to bear arms” is not limited to military use.11 Justice Stevens places great weight on James Madison’s inclusion of a conscientious-objector clause in his original draft of the Second Amendment : “but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.” Creating the Bill of Rights 12 (H. Veit, K. Bowling, & C. Bickford eds. 1991) (hereinafter Veit). He argues that this clause establishes that the drafters of the Second Amendment intended “bear Arms” to refer only to military service. See post, at 26. It is always perilous to derive the meaning of an adopted provision from another provision deleted in the drafting process.12 In any case, what Justice Stevens would conclude from the deleted provision does not follow. It was not meant to exempt from military service those who objected to going to war but had no scruples about personal gunfights. Quakers opposed the use of arms not just for militia service, but for any violent purpose whatsoever—so much so that Quaker frontiersmen were forbidden to use arms to defend their families, even though “n such circumstances the temptation to seize a hunting rifle or knife in self-defense … must sometimes have been almost overwhelming.” P. Brock, Pacifism in the United States 359 (196; see M. Hirst, The Quakers in Peace and War 336–339 (1923); 3 T. Clarkson, Portraiture of Quakerism 103–104 (3d ed. 1807). The Pennsylvania Militia Act of 1757 exempted from service those “scrupling the use of arms”—a phrase that no one contends had an idiomatic meaning. See 5 Stat. at Large of Pa. 613 (J. Mitchell & H. Flanders eds. 189 (emphasis added). Thus, the most natural interpretation of Madison’s deleted text is that those opposed to carrying weapons for potential violent confrontation would not be “compelled to render military service,” in which such carrying would be required.13 Finally, Justice Stevens suggests that “keep and bear Arms” was some sort of term of art, presumably akin to “hue and cry” or “cease and desist.” (This suggestion usefully evades the problem that there is no evidence whatsoever to support a military reading of “keep arms.”) Justice Stevens believes that the unitary meaning of “keep and bear Arms” is established by the Second Amendment ’s calling it a “right” (singular) rather than “rights” (plural). See post, at 16. There is nothing to this. State constitutions of the founding period routinely grouped multiple (related) guarantees under a singular “right,” and the First Amendment protects the “right [singular] of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” See, e.g., Pa. Declaration of Rights §§IX, XII, XVI, in 5 Thorpe 3083–3084; Ohio Const., Arts. VIII, §§11, 19 (1802), in id., at 2910–2911.14 And even if “keep and bear Arms” were a unitary phrase, we find no evidence that it bore a military meaning. Although the phrase was not at all common (which would be unusual for a term of art), we have found instances of its use with a clearly nonmilitary connotation. In a 1780 debate in the House of Lords, for example, Lord Richmond described an order to disarm private citizens (not militia members) as “a violation of the constitutional right of Protestant subjects to keep and bear arms for their own defense.” 49 The London Magazine or Gentleman’s Monthly Intelligencer 467 (1780). In response, another member of Parliament referred to “the right of bearing arms for personal defence,” making clear that no special military meaning for “keep and bear arms” was intended in the discussion. Id., at 467–468.15 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html
Heller's analysis of the phrase "keep and bear arms" was based on only a few sources. Better tools are available nowadays which make it easy to search a very large number of sources. The Corpus of Founding Era American English is a database which contains nearly 100,000 texts dated between 1760-1799. The Corpus of Early Modern English has over 40,000 texts dated from 1475 to 1800. https://harvardlawreview.org/blog/2018/08/corpus-linguistics-and-the-second-amendment/
I reviewed Cruikshank and it seems you're misinterpreting that ruling. The background is that African American militia members were disarmed and massacred by a mob of Klan members and former confederate soldiers. The court ruled that it was not the role of the federal government to intervene and that the plaintiffs must turn to their own state governments for the protection of their rights (including the RKBA) against such mobs. The ruling says nothing about the RKBA preceding government. Generally not. But the federal government can tax and regulate gun sales and deprive someone of property (which could be guns) with due process of law per the 5th Amendment.
where does the federal government PROPERLY get the power to regulate domestic gun sales oh here is the point that you ignored The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government. (this was pre incorporation)
As limits do exist on this "right", as with any such social construct, it only requires that extremists on one side or another push things too far for further limits to be imposed.
that is not a valid reason to violate the constitution. most of the extremists are those who try to crap on our rights
Given all the historical and linguistic evidence which contradicts your position, you need to take your own advice.
Congress has the power to regulate commerce. Obviously, gun sales are part of commerce. I didn't ignore it. I'll try to explain it again: Given the context of that quote, the court was obviously trying to make a point about the right to bear arms in this case being dependent on the state government (as opposed to the national government) protecting it: Black members of the militia must turn to their own state government for protection against being disarmed by racist mobs. The ruling says nothing about the right preceding government.
None of this, even if true, is relevant: -Heller stands. -It means something you hate -You don't get to ignore it.
And the government can regulate the interstate sale of firearms... .... so long as that regulation does not infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms. If the right to keep and bear arms is not granted by the constitution and exists independent of same... ... what then, post-ratification, created the right to keep and bear arms? Please cite/copy/paste the text to that effect.
"Keep" protects ownership as much "bear" protects hunting bears. The only thing we have established is that you cherry-picking words is incompatible with history and with the English language. The expression is "to keep and bear arms", which is an idiom that was of widespread use in the 18th Century to mean "utilize weapons in a military scenario and maintain them in good working condition". Which is demonstrated in the OP of this thread. Your argument would require us to believe that the framers wanted to "trick" people who read the constitution into believing that they intended to protect something different than what any English speaker with an average education at the time would understand when reading the text.
tell us the practical difference between the government not being able to infringe on private citizens keeping firearms vs owning them. I think everyone sees what obfuscatory bullshit that silly faux distinction is. Keep means to control and possess
Military service people keep (maintain in good working condition) their firearms even though they don't own them.
that is one definition but why would those in military service need an amendment to be able to keep that which the government issued to them. Keep also means to control and possess and that referred to the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE-not regulars in the military nor the militia
It's the CORRECT definition, as this thread demonstrates, when you understand that it's not "keep" but "keep and bear arms". If you take individual words out of context you could use them to prove... anything. Maybe even, as I said, to justify bear hunting. You claim to be the "expert" on the Constitution, and you want ME to explain WHY they passed the 2nd A? The good news is that I already did. Different thread, though. Here it is. http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/history-101-why-the-2nd-amendment.586263/ You even PARTICIPATED in that thread. So is your excuse now that you hadn't read the OP? Shocking!
