United States & Gun Control discussion.

[Dienekes]

I strongly disagree with this and my most recent post expresses those thoughts, even though I typed them without seeing your post until now.

That wasn't what the expressing of my thoughts. I was attempting to clarify JAB's argument so I could understand it better. With his above post, I understand it much better and agree with his argument.

Freefalling, I really like the historical context you provide, especially with respect to the standing army dilemma.

I have seen other articles on line where those for more gargue that the standing army acts in place of the "well regulated militia". Their reasoning is that the militia, understood to them as those called-to-arms similar to the aforementioned European armies, is meant to protect the state, and the standing army accomplishes that. The problem with their argument I believe can again be found in the context of the Framers. The Framers were revolutionists and saw what possible paths the government could take in usurping individual liberty. Hence, they saw the need to provide the people with a way to protect themselves from the State. I believe the "free State" mentioned in the 2A was meant to be understood as the freedom of the people in the State, and they protected that freedom through providing for a constitutionally allowed militia of the people which would be supplied through the right of the people to bear arms. I would believe that this would fall in line with the unorganized militia.

Thoughts from you more constitutionally well-read individuals on my logic? Keeping this going has clarified a few important issues for me and provided me with more solid arguments.

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

 

[x SF med]

Based on what you posted, the congress has the authority to appoint officers over the militia

the States appoint the officers, and the States conduct the training for all militia members to the discipline determined by Congress.

in other words, the states have control of everything having to do with the militia as long as they are trained to be ready for the call to form a standing army should Congress deem it necessary during a declared war.

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

the States appoint the officers, and the States conduct the training for all militia members to the discipline determined by Congress.

in other words, the states have control of everything having to do with the militia as long as they are trained to be ready for the call to form a standing army should Congress deem it necessary during a declared war.

You're right, I misread/misunderstood it.

My question at this point, is title 10 chapter 13 of the USC unconstitutional in your opinion?

For example, the NG fills the role of the "organized" militia. NG officers have to receive congressional appointment as officers to fulfill the title 10 mission of the NG.

Example 2, NG is trained and certified by federal branches, and this is a requirement for title 10 service.

Example 3, DOD's opinion guidance that state appointed officer have no federal recognition.

ETA: are you stating that the states have power to regulate or restrict the 2A based on article one, section 8, subsection 16? Or that the 2A is not a right of the people, and only a right of the militia and those who are appointed over it?

 

[Marauder06]

Didn't the Supreme Court already rule in DC vs. Heller that the 2A was in fact an individual right?

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

Yes they did, but also gave an opinion that it is not unrestricted.

 

[x SF med]

@JAB ,with all of the extra reading I've been doing I see the Right to keep and bear Arms as an individual right that allows the State's Right/requirement to field a militia, which then allows for the Federal Government to have a trained standing army in time of war. But that said, the Individual right is clearly stated in the 2A's wording.

I don't know shit about titles 10 and 32 of the USC and the NG use of those codes.

 

[AWP]

I don't know...

Mark this down in your calendars, folks! The troll isn't perfect. We all won a battle today.

 

[x SF med]

Mark this down in your calendars, folks! The troll isn't perfect. We all won a battle today.

I've said I don't know more than once, and have stayed out of threads (cough cough... gaming) where my knowledge is lacking... hurtful, just hurtful ... bad bad AWP.

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

@JAB ,with all of the extra reading I've been doing I see the Right to keep and bear Arms as an individual right that allows the State's Right/requirement to field a militia, which then allows for the Federal Government to have a trained standing army in time of war. But that said, the Individual right is clearly stated in the 2A's wording.

I agree with this, and I would even state that it's not unreasonable for 'the state' to restrict arms to personal weapons of the population. While restricting heavier armaments to possession's of the state armory.

In theory, Tom, Dick and Harry would have a modern combat load out (rifle, pistol, etc), ready to respond to the call up, where state officials (state appointed militia officers) would control the use of heavy armament (tanks, artillery, etc), under the orders of the governor or local authorities.

I do believe that is reasonable and more so how the founding fathers would have meant it, as that was the common practices of those times. Tom's barn may have been the designated "armory" where the cannon, shot and powder was stored. But Dick and Harry may not have been restricted from possession of cannon, but it was unlikely for them to have them, and most heavier armament, would have been community or state property.

 

[AWP]

And then we have:

Amish man sues to buy firearm without photo ID in gun rights, religious freedom lawsuit

In a suit that brings together the Second Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), an Amish man filed a federal lawsuit in Pennsylvania last week because he wants to buy a gun without the required photo ID — and because getting that photo ID would violate his religious beliefs.

That should be interesting and have repercussions outside of the gun rights debate. No matter how that ruling goes it lines up a bunch of other problems and court cases.

 

[Grunt]

If I didn't keep up with any other Second Amendment cases...this would be one of the ones to watch. As you said, this will open up another whole can of worms for multiple reasons.

However, cases like these are what starts things moving and sets precedents -- whether good or bad -- they get set on these type.

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

Ruling comes down "cannot require a photo on identification"

State says "we now require RFI chips for all identification"

Sunday morning Christians "mark of the beast"

Meanwhile its taco Tuesday all day today.

 

[DA SWO]

Didn't the Supreme Court already rule in DC vs. Heller that the 2A was in fact an individual right?

Yes and the word people refers to individuals, no different than the word people in the other amendments.

 

[SpitfireV]

Isn't a gun against Amish belief though being a mechanical device?

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

As far as the Constitution goes, it was purposely written to be vague in order to make it flexible to changing times. Both the individual right to keep and bear arms and the well-regulated militia aspect are stated in 2A, so the bases are covered. Is it open to interpretation? Yes. But Constitutional lawyers could argue both sides of the gun issue until doomsday and the original wording would still stand.

I've always been told exactly the opposite, that it was written in common English as to not be confusing for the common man.

What would you consider vague in the 2A?

As for changing with the times, the ability to amend the constitution, is what gives it flexibility. Obviously it is not as easy as some would like to do so, but the purpose is to give time and allow for reasoning and discussion before making changes.

The country as a whole could in fact amend the constitution to abolish the 2A, if everyone was on the same page. Thankfully we're not, and hopefully will remain so in the future.

 

[Marauder06]

@JAB ,with all of the extra reading I've been doing I see the Right to keep and bear Arms as an individual right that allows the State's Right/requirement to field a militia, which then allows for the Federal Government to have a trained standing army in time of war. But that said, the Individual right is clearly stated in the 2A's wording.

I don't know shit about titles 10 and 32 of the USC and the NG use of those codes.

People think "the militia" is the National Guard, but it is every able-bodied military-age man according to Title 10, USC. The term "well-regulated" does not mean "closely supervised," it means "kept in working order." Therefore, if we accept that men and women are equally citizens and that all bear the responsibilities of citizenship, the statement "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" can be interpreted as "every able-bodied American being able to keep and bear arms in order to be a viable member of the militia."

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

People think "the militia" is the National Guard, but it is every able-bodied military-age man according to Title 10, USC. The term "well-regulated" does not mean "closely supervised," it means "kept in working order." Therefore, if we accept that men and women are equally citizens and that all bear the responsibilities of citizenship, the statement "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" can be interpreted as "every able-bodied American being able to keep and bear arms in order to be a viable member of the militia."

I agree, but my question is, how can congress develop title 10, ch13, organized and unorganized, as the constitution states, that the militia, in basic terms belongs to 'the states'?

It seems to me (based on what x SF med pointed out), the congress can say how they should be organized and trained, can provide arms and equipment, but in that regard, it would be to every able bodied person. Would it not? Where do they get the authority to say these guys ( The NG) are the organized militia, and the others (state guards, and everybody else) are unorganized militia.

It seems the only distinguishing factor is a title 10, ch13. But in making such a law, is congress fulfilling its obligations to provide that "equip, arm, regulate, discipline" or are they limiting it to only the NG, which is really just a reserve pool for the federal Army/USAF, and really not a militia at all by definition.

The top probably reads confusing as hell, only b/c I'm confused as hell now. lol

 

[policemedic]

Isn't a gun against Amish belief though being a mechanical device?

The Amish and the Mennonites are different. Mennonites accept more modern advances than do their Amish cousins. They're very closely related in belief otherwise though, and most who don't live around them wouldn't know the difference.

 

[policemedic]

And then we have:

Amish man sues to buy firearm without photo ID in gun rights, religious freedom lawsuit



That should be interesting and have repercussions outside of the gun rights debate. No matter how that ruling goes it lines up a bunch of other problems and court cases.

The plaintiff is actually being represented by a law firm I've done business with, and they're good. They specialize in firearms law.

The interesting thing will be happens to the validity of non-photo licenses, licenses with photos taken in full Islamic dress including hijab, etc.

To my mind, if they're not valid for all purposes they aren't valid at all.