10 ms·

The constitution doesn’t enshrine the right to a gun. It enshrines the right to a gun for the sake of a well regulated militia. The NYC ruling was pure judicial

The constitution doesn’t enshrine the right to a gun. It enshrines the right to a gun for the sake of a well regulated militia. The NYC ruling was pure judicial activism

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
hackinthebochs 4y ago
No, it's correct: https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment2.html https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment2.html >The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause (A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State) and its operative clause (the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed).
- inlined 4y ago
  Modern judicial activism which clearly goes to the heart of the matter: the conservative bloc in the SCOTUS doesn’t care about even the text of the constitution
  - gadflyinyoureye 4y ago
    Whose right is gun ownership? It's the people. The Constitution explicitly says that the Government will not have the right to infringe on that right. The inference is that they can infringe on all the other non-enumerated rights. Edit: to pull context from another comment here. "The 'militia' was the entire adult male citizenry, who were not simply allowed to keep their own arms, but affirmatively required to do so.… With slight variations, the different colonies imposed a duty to keep arms and to muster occasionally for drill upon virtually every able-bodied white man between the age of majority and a designated cut-off age. Moreover, the duty to keep arms applied to every household, not just to those containing persons subject to militia service. Thus the over-aged and seamen, who were exempt from militia service, were required to keep arms for law enforcement and for the defense of their homes." This issue is that the States became lazy once the Feds got their standing military. All States should require citizens to muster for arms and disaster training at least twice a year.
    - nullfield 4y ago
      Militia: still is, mostly - people live a little longer now. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246
- BeefWellington 4y ago
  I've had this question for a while but why can I not own a functional tank or MLRS system and just drive them around wherever I want? Why are explosives regulated? Nothing in the constitution seems to suggest "Arms" must mean "guns and only guns", so where else is the line drawn?
  - exhilaration 4y ago
    In many states you totally can own a functional tank, missile system, or explosives -- you just need the right $200 stamp from the ATF and maybe a background check. (Each tank shell or missile would require an additional ATF stamp, this is where things become different from owning a normal gun and ammunition.) Driving them around - outside of your property - would require them to be properly licensed and road-legal, that's something your local motor vehicle agency would have to decide. Here's the first Google result for your entertainment: You Can Purchase a Fully Functional Army Tank Online Because This Is America https://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2015/09/armslist-sells-fully-functional-military-weaponry https://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2015/09/armslist-sells-f...
    - BeefWellington 4y ago
      > In many states you totally can own a functional tank, missile system, or explosives -- you just need the right $200 stamp from the ATF and maybe a background check. I'm aware and my point was explicitly about being able to drive them around wherever I like, under the guise of it being the rough equivalent of concealed carry for an MLRS. You can't; there's restrictions. At the minimum, it's likely that people would argue they're heavy and would harm infrastructure (or outright destroy it in the case of some tanks). Separately, explosives are also tightly controlled, but are still a key part of armaments.
      - bmelton 4y ago
        I think if you looked deeper, you'd find that the restrictions for where you could and could not drive tanks are more restrictions on the _roads_ than the _tanks_ The government owns the roads, ergo can sidestep a lot of the what might otherwise be mandated under strict scrutiny for their usage with rational basis tests. E.g., "the roads are rated for <x> class of vehicles, and a tank is <y> class."
tablespoon 4y ago
> The constitution doesn’t enshrine the right to a gun. It enshrines the right to a gun for the sake of a well regulated militia. IIRC, you need private gun ownership to have a militia (as the founders understood them). I believe the idea was regular citizens would organize when needed and bring their own guns.
- p_l 4y ago
  One of possible interpretations, which AFAIK was even on the books in some state for a time, was that second amendment meant compulsory obligation for each voter to buy, out of their own money, a military rifle and stand for militia training periodically - essentially, mandatory militia service. Lots of ways to wring hands about a very badly written amendment.
lkjdsklf 4y ago
Firstly, the supreme court decides what the 2A means and they decided it does not mean that. The NYC law spit in the face of a previous supreme court decision. That can't be allowed. You can argue that the previous decision was wrong all you want (I personally think it was), but you can't allow the states to just ignore the supreme court and do whatever they want or all constitutional protections are meaningless.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > The NYC law spit in the face of a previous supreme court decision. That can’t be allowed. I mean it obviously can, as the law at issue in Dobbs did that, and it was allowed.
  - lkjdsklf 4y ago
    An extension of my first point is that the supreme court decides what is constitutional and what isn't. My point was that only the supreme court can be allowed to overturn the supreme court. That's how it works. If the court decides that a previous court was wrong, then that's fine. That's how the system is designed. tl;dr we have a really dogshit system that essentially puts 9 people in charge of everything
    - hirako2000 4y ago
      It puts them in charge of interpreting the constitution, I thought. What a stretch to make them seem like on a whim law makers or tyrannical. Governments tends to become tyrannical especially as they scale and gain more power. That's what the fabulous constitution was drafted after for the most part: to protect people against the government(s). Not put by Trump or other conservative to exerce more control over people. Here quite the opposite. I see in this overturn a move to re-establish distance and reduce the over reach of governance, federal legislation here, the supreme court attacking itself. The constitution still somehow works in the U.S, and supreme judges doing a great job at keeping it honored.
      - 4y ago
gadflyinyoureye 4y ago
https://www.madisonbrigade.com/library_bor.htm https://www.madisonbrigade.com/library_bor.htm "The 'militia' was the entire adult male citizenry, who were not simply allowed to keep their own arms, but affirmatively required to do so.… With slight variations, the different colonies imposed a duty to keep arms and to muster occasionally for drill upon virtually every able-bodied white man between the age of majority and a designated cut-off age. Moreover, the duty to keep arms applied to every household, not just to those containing persons subject to militia service. Thus the over-aged and seamen, who were exempt from militia service, were required to keep arms for law enforcement and for the defense of their homes." This issue is that the States became lazy once the Feds got their standing military. All States should require citizens to muster for arms and disaster training at least twice a year.
- jameshart 4y ago
  > All States should require citizens to muster for arms and disaster training at least twice a year Or how about, since we banded together in order to create a more perfect union, and so that I, as a citizen, can focus my time on pursuing happiness, rather than mustering every six months, we agree, through our democratically elected representatives, to just pay some money into a kitty and out of that fund a professional police force, fire department, and a state national guard. That way we get sufficient people trained in the use of arms to secure our liberty, and we don't have to act like we're a bunch of 18th century farmers any more.
  - gadflyinyoureye 4y ago
    No, the Federal government having a standing army is what leads to us invading other countries. This is a terrible, terrible thing. It is far harder to forward deploy individuals that are only required to defend their homeland. Also, we've seen all the institutions you mention collapse in the face of disaster. It would be far better for the citizens to be responsible for themselves in a collation with larger bodies than be dependent upon those larger organizations. For example, in Florida it makes sense to have the community trained on preparation and local response. People need to know what to materials to gather and what is already stockpiled locally. In the face of a hurricane, the community guard, i.e. the people, would be responsible for triaging the situation until reinforcements arrive. As it stands, the people huddle together en-mass hoping that the Federal government, or even the State will come to their rescue.
SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
I love these arguments that still want to pretend that Well Regulated means lots of regulations instead of the actual "Well trained and in good working order". And Milita which is really just any able bodied adult that can fight for defense of self or state... But ignores Heller 2008 and McDonald 2010 which both, for a long time, have ruled that this word argument is complete nonsense. That regardless of what you want to believe, 2A is an individual right. Heller v DC - It's an individual right to own a firearm. You can't ban handguns or anything else just because you say so. McDonald v Chicago - You can't just not issue permits to carry. 2A includes the right to carry outside the home. NYPRA v Bruen - You can't say you MIGHT issue a permit, you will if they meet the legal requirements established by your state. Please stop with the intellectually void argument that 2A is how you see it because you think the first few words invalidate "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". It's weak, and more importantly, it's over. It has been nail in the coffin settled for 12 years now.
- jameshart 4y ago
  And abortion being a woman's right up to the moment of viability was "nail in the coffin settled" in 1973. The court's analysis that 'keep and bear arms' implies an individual right to carry a handgun (or a weapon 'in common use') for self defense purposes is exactly the kind of drawing of 'legislative-style' boundaries that the court railed against in today's ruling overturning Roe and Casey.
  - SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
    >And abortion being a woman's right up to the moment of viability was "nail in the coffin settled" in 1973. Can you point to a scotus case that has clarified or determined the text of the abortion amendment?
    - jameshart 4y ago
      ROE V WADE
      - 4y ago

The constitution doesn’t enshrine the right to a gun. It enshrines the right to a gun for the sake of a well regulated militia. The NYC ruling was pure judicial activism

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

hackinthebochs 4y ago

No, it's correct: https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment2.html https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment2.html >The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause (A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State) and its operative clause (the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed).

inlined 4y ago
Modern judicial activism which clearly goes to the heart of the matter: the conservative bloc in the SCOTUS doesn’t care about even the text of the constitution
- gadflyinyoureye 4y ago
  Whose right is gun ownership? It's the people. The Constitution explicitly says that the Government will not have the right to infringe on that right. The inference is that they can infringe on all the other non-enumerated rights. Edit: to pull context from another comment here. "The 'militia' was the entire adult male citizenry, who were not simply allowed to keep their own arms, but affirmatively required to do so.… With slight variations, the different colonies imposed a duty to keep arms and to muster occasionally for drill upon virtually every able-bodied white man between the age of majority and a designated cut-off age. Moreover, the duty to keep arms applied to every household, not just to those containing persons subject to militia service. Thus the over-aged and seamen, who were exempt from militia service, were required to keep arms for law enforcement and for the defense of their homes." This issue is that the States became lazy once the Feds got their standing military. All States should require citizens to muster for arms and disaster training at least twice a year.
  - nullfield 4y ago
    Militia: still is, mostly - people live a little longer now. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246
BeefWellington 4y ago
I've had this question for a while but why can I not own a functional tank or MLRS system and just drive them around wherever I want? Why are explosives regulated? Nothing in the constitution seems to suggest "Arms" must mean "guns and only guns", so where else is the line drawn?
- exhilaration 4y ago
  In many states you totally can own a functional tank, missile system, or explosives -- you just need the right $200 stamp from the ATF and maybe a background check. (Each tank shell or missile would require an additional ATF stamp, this is where things become different from owning a normal gun and ammunition.) Driving them around - outside of your property - would require them to be properly licensed and road-legal, that's something your local motor vehicle agency would have to decide. Here's the first Google result for your entertainment: You Can Purchase a Fully Functional Army Tank Online Because This Is America https://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2015/09/armslist-sells-fully-functional-military-weaponry https://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2015/09/armslist-sells-f...
  - BeefWellington 4y ago
    > In many states you totally can own a functional tank, missile system, or explosives -- you just need the right $200 stamp from the ATF and maybe a background check. I'm aware and my point was explicitly about being able to drive them around wherever I like, under the guise of it being the rough equivalent of concealed carry for an MLRS. You can't; there's restrictions. At the minimum, it's likely that people would argue they're heavy and would harm infrastructure (or outright destroy it in the case of some tanks). Separately, explosives are also tightly controlled, but are still a key part of armaments.
    - bmelton 4y ago
      I think if you looked deeper, you'd find that the restrictions for where you could and could not drive tanks are more restrictions on the _roads_ than the _tanks_ The government owns the roads, ergo can sidestep a lot of the what might otherwise be mandated under strict scrutiny for their usage with rational basis tests. E.g., "the roads are rated for <x> class of vehicles, and a tank is <y> class."

tablespoon 4y ago

> The constitution doesn’t enshrine the right to a gun. It enshrines the right to a gun for the sake of a well regulated militia. IIRC, you need private gun ownership to have a militia (as the founders understood them). I believe the idea was regular citizens would organize when needed and bring their own guns.

p_l 4y ago
One of possible interpretations, which AFAIK was even on the books in some state for a time, was that second amendment meant compulsory obligation for each voter to buy, out of their own money, a military rifle and stand for militia training periodically - essentially, mandatory militia service. Lots of ways to wring hands about a very badly written amendment.

lkjdsklf 4y ago

Firstly, the supreme court decides what the 2A means and they decided it does not mean that. The NYC law spit in the face of a previous supreme court decision. That can't be allowed. You can argue that the previous decision was wrong all you want (I personally think it was), but you can't allow the states to just ignore the supreme court and do whatever they want or all constitutional protections are meaningless.

dragonwriter 4y ago
> The NYC law spit in the face of a previous supreme court decision. That can’t be allowed. I mean it obviously can, as the law at issue in Dobbs did that, and it was allowed.
- lkjdsklf 4y ago
  An extension of my first point is that the supreme court decides what is constitutional and what isn't. My point was that only the supreme court can be allowed to overturn the supreme court. That's how it works. If the court decides that a previous court was wrong, then that's fine. That's how the system is designed. tl;dr we have a really dogshit system that essentially puts 9 people in charge of everything
  - hirako2000 4y ago
    It puts them in charge of interpreting the constitution, I thought. What a stretch to make them seem like on a whim law makers or tyrannical. Governments tends to become tyrannical especially as they scale and gain more power. That's what the fabulous constitution was drafted after for the most part: to protect people against the government(s). Not put by Trump or other conservative to exerce more control over people. Here quite the opposite. I see in this overturn a move to re-establish distance and reduce the over reach of governance, federal legislation here, the supreme court attacking itself. The constitution still somehow works in the U.S, and supreme judges doing a great job at keeping it honored.
    - 4y ago

gadflyinyoureye 4y ago

https://www.madisonbrigade.com/library_bor.htm https://www.madisonbrigade.com/library_bor.htm "The 'militia' was the entire adult male citizenry, who were not simply allowed to keep their own arms, but affirmatively required to do so.… With slight variations, the different colonies imposed a duty to keep arms and to muster occasionally for drill upon virtually every able-bodied white man between the age of majority and a designated cut-off age. Moreover, the duty to keep arms applied to every household, not just to those containing persons subject to militia service. Thus the over-aged and seamen, who were exempt from militia service, were required to keep arms for law enforcement and for the defense of their homes." This issue is that the States became lazy once the Feds got their standing military. All States should require citizens to muster for arms and disaster training at least twice a year.

jameshart 4y ago
> All States should require citizens to muster for arms and disaster training at least twice a year Or how about, since we banded together in order to create a more perfect union, and so that I, as a citizen, can focus my time on pursuing happiness, rather than mustering every six months, we agree, through our democratically elected representatives, to just pay some money into a kitty and out of that fund a professional police force, fire department, and a state national guard. That way we get sufficient people trained in the use of arms to secure our liberty, and we don't have to act like we're a bunch of 18th century farmers any more.
- gadflyinyoureye 4y ago
  No, the Federal government having a standing army is what leads to us invading other countries. This is a terrible, terrible thing. It is far harder to forward deploy individuals that are only required to defend their homeland. Also, we've seen all the institutions you mention collapse in the face of disaster. It would be far better for the citizens to be responsible for themselves in a collation with larger bodies than be dependent upon those larger organizations. For example, in Florida it makes sense to have the community trained on preparation and local response. People need to know what to materials to gather and what is already stockpiled locally. In the face of a hurricane, the community guard, i.e. the people, would be responsible for triaging the situation until reinforcements arrive. As it stands, the people huddle together en-mass hoping that the Federal government, or even the State will come to their rescue.

SV_BubbleTime 4y ago

I love these arguments that still want to pretend that Well Regulated means lots of regulations instead of the actual "Well trained and in good working order". And Milita which is really just any able bodied adult that can fight for defense of self or state... But ignores Heller 2008 and McDonald 2010 which both, for a long time, have ruled that this word argument is complete nonsense. That regardless of what you want to believe, 2A is an individual right. Heller v DC - It's an individual right to own a firearm. You can't ban handguns or anything else just because you say so. McDonald v Chicago - You can't just not issue permits to carry. 2A includes the right to carry outside the home. NYPRA v Bruen - You can't say you MIGHT issue a permit, you will if they meet the legal requirements established by your state. Please stop with the intellectually void argument that 2A is how you see it because you think the first few words invalidate "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". It's weak, and more importantly, it's over. It has been nail in the coffin settled for 12 years now.

jameshart 4y ago
And abortion being a woman's right up to the moment of viability was "nail in the coffin settled" in 1973. The court's analysis that 'keep and bear arms' implies an individual right to carry a handgun (or a weapon 'in common use') for self defense purposes is exactly the kind of drawing of 'legislative-style' boundaries that the court railed against in today's ruling overturning Roe and Casey.
- SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
  >And abortion being a woman's right up to the moment of viability was "nail in the coffin settled" in 1973. Can you point to a scotus case that has clarified or determined the text of the abortion amendment?
  - jameshart 4y ago
    ROE V WADE
    - 4y ago