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

So, you think a State can enact a total ban on guns? Interesting take, but not correct.

 

not after the 14th amendment was enacted by the states and incorporated and before that, not if the state constitution said otherwise. most leftist states piss all over their own constitutional provisions

 

The Court did say that the Second Amendment only protected guns which had a connection to service in the militia in Miller and later in Lewis.

"These legislative restrictions on the use of firearms are neither based upon constitutionally suspect criteria nor do they trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties. See United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 307 U. S. 178 (1939) (the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia'); "
-Lewis v. United States (1980)

 

http://recordsofrights.org/events/124/the-colfax-massacre

In the Colfax Massacre, black militia members were disarmed and killed by white supremacists. In Cruikshank, the Court ruled that the Second Amendment provided no protection against being disarmed by private actors. But given that Congress has jurisdiction over arming the militia, it seems they could intervene to prevent militia members from being disarmed. Nowadays, the federal government would get involved if a hate crime like that happened.

 

Simple: It hasn't been repealed.
Nor will it be.
And you don't get to ignore it.

 

And so, the 2nd Amendment protects my right to own M4 carbines, and M249 SAWs.
Good to know.
What's that have to do with what I said?

 

that's not as helpful to the gun banners are you think it is-and it was a joke of a case given that the defendants did not appear in the court and the biased USSC did not remand to the trial court for factual findings (where they would have found that sawn off shotguns were often used for a "well regulated militia"

btw since the standard issue firearms of the militia is a fully automatic carbine, do you agree that is protected by the second amendment?

 

Cruikshank was prior to 14th amendment incorporation. It also held that right existed prior to and outside the constitution. what do you think that means?

 

I don't think for one second that the Supreme Court in Miller was trying to say that two bank robbers had a Second Amendment right to own those weapons. It's an absurd interpretation given the historical context. The government was trying to crack down on gangsters not empower them.

Go back and read your claim about "unconnected to service in the militia" if you can't remember what you wrote.

 

You:
The Court did say that the Second Amendment only protected guns which had a connection to service in the militia.

What firearms are better connected to service in the militia than M4s and M249s?

 

Correct.
The PERSON who holds the right to keep and bear arms holds it regardless of his connection to service in the militia.

 

Didn't militias exist prior to the Constitution?

 

It depends on how they're being used not just the type of weapon.

 

you're missing the point entirely or you don't understand it. it's based on the fact that the founders saw the right of self defense as a natural right and the second was based on that and that was a right the founders saw as existing since the dawn of man. Militias had nothing to do with what Cruikshank was referencing

 

wrong, the anti gun left wants to pretend that the incredibly bogus miller case required "militia use"

they didn't say that and the fact that miller was not a member of the militia further cuts against your claim

 

So the Court was trying to say that Miller and Layton (two bank robbers) didn't have a Second Amendment right to own a sawed-off shotgun but they did a have right to own machine guns (because soldiers use those weapons)? They were saying that part of the NFA was constitutional and that another part was unconstitutional? But this wasn't the common understanding of the ruling at the time but gun activists somehow figured out the true meaning decades later? The more I think about this interpretation of Miller the more absurd it seems....

 

actually the Miller court didn't say that but if you go by the language than the obvious rational interpretation is yes.

why don't you tell us what sort of weapons do you THINK are protected based on the poorly written Miller case-a case that was a set up and collusion between an anti gun judge and the Government to uphold an act both knew was probably unconstitutional

 

That's not what the court said in Miller.
The weapon and its suitability for use in the militia -- not the person, and not the use -- determines if the 2nd protects the right of the people to own and use that weapon.

Are M4s and M249s suitable for militia service?
Then the 2nd Amendment protects our right to own and use them/

 

Machineguns never entered into it.
But, as machineguns are useful to the militia, our right to on and use them is protected.

 

Eventually, the 21st century NRA SCOTUS will be replaced by justices that know how to interpret the original meaning and text of the Constitution. That's all it takes.

 

If that is the case, all federal gun control that impacts bearable firearms, will be obliterated because that is the original meaning of the second amendment. Not a negative restriction on the government that was watered down by creating an expansion of the commerce clause by judicial fiat

and the tenth amendment alone should do this as well

 

When that happens, let me know.
Until then:
-The 2nd is there
-It means something you do not like
-You don't get to ignore it.

 

Unsubstantiated. Your interpretation makes no sense given the historical context and it's not how the ruling has been interpreted when the Supreme Court has revisited it in other cases.

 

what makes no sense is for gun banners to pretend that the founders gave the new federal government any gun control powers given the complete absence of any hints of such a power in Article One Section Eight

 

The text:
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.

Thus:
The weapon and its suitability for use in the militia -- not the person, and not the use -- determines if the 2nd protects the right of the people to own and use that weapon.
Substantiated.

Are M4s and M249s suitable for militia service?
Then the 2nd Amendment protects our right to own and use them/