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

Your opinion and $10 might get a Latte.

That you think the federal government, state government, and/or local governments have no authority to regulate firearms shows you to be All Hat and No Cowboy.

 

How much authority to regulate firearms is derived from "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed"?

I would suggest that, prior to answering, you consider the legal definition of 'militia' according to US Code (hint- its basically all adults), as well as which additional regulations you think need to be applied to it.

 

you see a diamond and call it a spade-that's either a vision problem or a failing of integrity

 

why do you keep dishonestly misstating my position-is it due to your failure to actually address what I wrote. state governments have all sorts of powers to regulate the USE of firearms and in some cases, the possession of firearms. I will go fetch some posts that i wrote long before you decided to help our side with your silly comments

 

read these and get back to me

 

I suggest you look up "well regulated" which trumps your "militia" by one Marbury v Madison

 

A distinction without a difference.

 

uhhh...
It's what you said in this thread
If you're disputing the facualitiness of my assertion you can prove me wrong...or not.

 

that is beyond hilarious. you are pretending that a negative restriction on the government only vests if the rights the government seeks to regulate are well regulated which makes no sense. your argument is absolutely rejected by even the minority in Heller

 

I already did-you clearly ignore any post that thrashes your misrepresentations

what do you think "well regulated" meant in the second and how does that revise the negative restriction on the new federal government?

 

You are suggesting that the government hasno authority to regulate firearms
AND
That the founders put the "militia " in there as filler for their 1000 word essay.

 

Me?

"Well Regulated?"

Controlled by the State
Managed by the State
With a defined military structure
Serving the will of the State and by extension, by the President's authority to activate the Guard, in service to the Federal government.

As opposed to
some guys who bought cammo down at Wal Mart and sit in the woods talking about taking down the GUBMINT while pinging beer cans.

There is no stated or implied right to own a firearm outside of Well Regulated Militia Membership.
"Not no way, not no how"

 

can you point to something in the constitution that actually delegates a PROPER power to restrict or interfere with PRIVATE citizens owning arms.

you seem unable to understand the interplay between Article One Section Eight, and the Second and Tenth amendments.

 

OMG WHAT A COMPLETE FAIL


https://constitutioncenter.org/images/uploads/news/CNN_Aug_11.pdf

read the bit about well regulated


https://www.heritage.org/the-essential-second-amendment/the-well-regulated-militia


A “well-regulated” militia simply meant that the processes for activating, training, and deploying the militia in official service should be efficient and orderly, and that the militia itself should be capable of competently executing battlefield operations.

https://reason.com/2019/11/03/what-is-a-well-regulated-militia-anyway/

but whether we currently have a well-regulated militia doesn't control whether or not Americans have a right to keep and bear arms. The ideological background of the Second Amendment, the plain meaning of its operative clause, parallel phrasing elsewhere in the Constitution, and the militia clauses of Section I make it clear that they do. The Second Amendment, as Scalia rightly recognized, guarantees an individual right to the people, no matter how the federal government chooses to regulate the organized militia.

 

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; . . .

There is where the authority is derived
"Law Abiding Gun Owners" failure to act so as to protect the public from their weapons is why the government acts
and
Failure of the states to establish uniform laws is why the Federal government acts.

 

That you willfully ignore the content as well as intent is obvious.

Show me the specific words or clauses that grant to Anyone the right to have a firearm absent any regulation.
You can do it
And by that I mean
YOU CAN'T DO IT

The "right" to bear arms is only present if you purposely choose to ignore the opening clause.

Of course, picking and choosing which laws to follow has become an conservative thing.

 

you just got an F in constitutional law-

 

again you fail constitutional law-the duty is UPON YOU to show where the federal government was properly empowered to infringe on the rights of private citizens to keep and bear arms

 

From you?????

 

I love watching those unlearned dig their holes deeper.

have you figured out that the general welfare clause is not a grant of power to the government to pass gun control laws?

the gun control movement in the USA is based on dishonesty and you continue to prove this is correct

 

I have. The common usage of 'regulate' at the time of the writing of the Constitution was not 'to control via govt' as is common today, rather it meant 'to ensure adequate supply and efficient operation', like a regulator in a piece of machinery.

WellRegulatedinold literature.pdf (armsandthelaw.com)

A 'well regulated' militia in the 1800s had modern weaponry, warm clothes, enough food and ammo for several days of combat and a minimum degree of training to operate in a cohesive group.

If we 'regulated' the militia today to the same extent that the text of the 2A meant when it was written, then all able bodied male citizens (and prospective citizens) aged 17-45 (and anyone else that wanted to be in the militia, given the emphasis on inclusivity in todays politics) would regularly report to a Civil Defense center with their standard issue infantry weapon, a kit with food, ammo, camp gear, appropriate outdoor clothing, for inspection and training.

I fully support regulating a voluntary militia in this manner. I would even agree that we could mandate 'if you want to own firearms, you must participate in the militia' (but then also, no one can be denied from participating in the militia). This would be the most literal and accurate application of the text and intent of the Second Amendment. But I also think it would be difficult to convince the govt to honestly support such a program. It prefers having way more authority than would be applicable to an essentially voluntary force. This is why there is no attempt to regulate the militia according to the original intent of the constitution. Also, we were not supposed to have a permanent standing army. Now we do, and a very expensive one at that, which is completely contrary to the original intent.

So how do you think the militia needs to be more 'well regulated'?

 

Training and discipline as a military organization
Under the control of the State
and by Extension, the President.

Identical weapons and training on those weapons
Training and discipline...
Training and discipline...

And if you're not an active militia member in good standing, you have no RIGHT to own a firearm.

That is not to say one cannot own a firearm but the type and quantity heavily regulated to protect the public.

 

Everyone legally allowed to own fire and is an active member in the militia read the militia act and you'll understand why your point is wrong.

Or dismiss it and continue in your incompetence.

Every person gets people bodied over the age of 18 is active militia.

Firearms are heavily regulated.

 

I can agree with most of that, provided 'in good standing' does not involve any ideological discrimination, and State Constitutions are still respected ...which usually place the authority over those militia within their state with the State Governor and/or the County Sherrif (varies by state), not the President ...perhaps, iirc, with the exception of the official declaration of war by Congress, and then still only for the defense of actual US territory (to prevent using the militia for foreign conquest).

So if you and I can (close enough) agree to this sort of regulation, why, if you had to guess, is there no substantial movement (on either side of the partisan aisles) to actually implement such regulations?

 

One side wants something and the other side opposes everything.

Dems would take ANY movement to reduce the threat of firearms on the public.
GOP is afraid to take any action because any action will turn the GOP hate machine on them and primary them out of office.