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

The delegates chosen by the states to participate in the Constitional Convention referred to themselves as "We the People of the United States", but it's obvious that not every individual in the US was personally involved in writing the Consititution.

I think Saul Cornell said that bearing arms was a duty on an individual level but a right on a collective level. An individual, for example, could be compelled to bear arms in a government organized militia. This shows that the right protected by the Second Amendment was fundamentally different from some of the other rights in the Bill of Rights. For example, it would seem to be contradictory to claim that the right to practice your religion was protected if you could be required by law to join and attend a government organized church.

 

So, you see law enforcement as a crime family?

Yes, they only banned the 'bearing' of firearms and 'keeping' of them.

 

not really and yes, in many of those towns, the ruling group was both law enforcement and a crime family. study the Sullivan law in NYC as an example.

what exactly are you arguing BTW, that there were violations of state constitutions and you support that, or those of us who want to see the second imposed on those states are "wrong".

 

Well, Tombstone had an crime family, but they did not run the LE, the Earp brothers did.

I am not arguing anything, just adding some info to the post made by someone who pointed out that gun bans were common back in the days of the wild west. The gunfight at OK Coral was actually about enforcing the gun ban.

 

There are so many quotes from founders that suggest the people have an individual right it’s crazy to even argue to the contrary.

 

and there was jim crow back then too but there were no federal gun control laws so when anti gun advocates try to pretend that Heller was something novel and "violates" 200 years of jurisprudence, that is bald faced lie. There was no federal infringements until 1934

 

Sure, and "the people" refers to anyone in US, not just citizens.

 

So be it

 

The Second Amendment does not protect a human right (a right you have because of being human). It may protect a civic right (a right you have for being part of a political community like the right to vote). But gun owners don't care about participating in an organized militia these days anyway. No one cares an individual right to be armed for the purpose of being part of a well-regulated militia. No one is going to sue the National Guard for violating their Second Amendment rights if they aren't allowed to join. That's why there has been an effort to reinvent the Second Amendment as protecting an individual to be armed for self-defense (because that's something that some people do care about these days).

 

another apparently feeble attempt to denigrate the second amendment laced with a misunderstanding that the founders believed and intended that the second amendment was solidifying a basic NATURAL right of self defense. And you have no CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO JOIN A MILITIA, some of us are too old, too young, physically challenged, or hold government offices. But actually serving in a militia is not a requirement for the NEGATIVE RESTRICTION on the federal government to protect your right. I would suggest gun owners are more likely to volunteer than gun banners

 

you know that is not true. Maybe just to end the confusion-why don't you set forth your belief as to what the second amendment does and what it was intended to do

 

Federal gov't gets power to regulate firearms not only from 2A itself, but Art1 Sec8 of the Constitution. If there were no regulations, then why not let mentally retarded own them?

And I don't know how it's possible we still have a 2A. 'being necessary to the security of a free state' (which it no longer is necessary since we have now have standing army and national guards). In simple terms, the 2A is no longer applicable. And events like Whiskey Rebellion (under Washington) and Civil War prove that it was never intended to overthrow the government.

 

Who in US are not protected by the Constitution (other than diplomats)?

I was not talking about that, I was talking about who "the people" refers to in the Constitution.

 

Illegal aliens cannot own or buy firearms in the USA.
their right of assembly is not particular guaranteed either

 

The Constitution considers everyone (except diplomats), including the illegal aliens as "people" and therefore they enjoy the protections of the Constitution. Whether or not they should be able to bear arms is an interesting question. Sounds like you are a gun-banner in their case.

 

I am merely stating the law. I'd be a bit reserved about calling others gun banners. Do you oppose illegal aliens not being able to buy firearms in the USA (it's a disqualifying characteristic on form 4473)

 

I am stating Constitution, which includes all people who are within US jurisdiction, except diplomats.

No, I do not think illegals should be able to buy guns, I only said it would be an interesting question from Constitution POV, since it simply says "the people", which includes everyone. You are the one who argues it does not rule out anyone, like those who are NOT members of militias. Now you are saying it DOES rule out some people.

All these forms, rules, laws and other obstacles which you defend only harass the law abiding gun owners, and now you want to add more...... Hmmmm. Its a slippery slope to a total ban

 

so what other rights specified in the bill of rights apply to illegal aliens. Cruel and unusual punishment-yes, right to counsel yes, fourth amendment? assembly? And you are again misrepresenting what I have said, I have said the second amendment applies to lawful citizens of age who have not lost that right through due process of law. Find something to the contrary if you can

 

Where does the 2A say something about age, or anything else to rule out some groups of people?

 

Or not.
They spoke of themselves as representatives of their states, not the people of their states, and spoke on the behalf of the state legislatures.
Any number of times, they wrote to their state legislatures for instructions,and some refuse to vote without instructions from same.

Owning and using firearms is a right of the people. Says so right in the constitution.
You have no right to do anything as a part of a group because you can be refused membership of that group.
Thus, the right of the people to keep and bear arms must exist outside the context of the militia as no one has the right to be in the militia.

 

The Court has never held the 2nd Amendment to protect anything other than an individual right, unconnected to service in the militia.

 

quote the language in Article One Section Eight that actually was intended to delegate that power to the federal government (rather than leave it at a state level

the no longer relevant is hilarious and wrong. Go AHEAD TRY TO REPEAL it I don't think you will get enough states to go along

 

good question, I am not the one who supports any federal gun control and that is based on the tenth. You see the founders never thought the federal government should have any gun control power and thus these issues never would have arisen but for the machinations of FDR. the founders intended the STATES to have such power and of course the BoRs was not intended to deal with that (by the time of the fourteenth amendment, I believe all the founders had passed and I suspect lots of those who pushed the 14th weren't quite aware of the issues that would be created)

 

I dont think the founders intended to give the States the power to override the Constitution. It would make the Constitution meaningless.

 

well if you read Cruikshank then you know that the conventional wisdom-even after the 14th amendment, was that most if not all of the bill of rights "overrides" the constitution

the constitution set forth what the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT COULD DO and the bill of rights was about what it COULD NOT DO. so I don't think your argument makes much sense unless you claim that the states had the power to say override the power of the US Government as delegated to it in Article One Section Eight