5 ms·

"For more than 200 years, the federal courts have unanimously determined that the Second Amendment concerns only the arming of the people in service to an organ

"For more than 200 years, the federal courts have unanimously determined that the Second Amendment concerns only the arming of the people in service to an organized state militia; it does not guarantee immediate access to guns for private purposes. The nation can no longer afford to let the gun lobby's distortion of the Constitution cripple every reasonable attempt to implement an effective national policy toward guns and crime" - Warren Burger

seanw444 4y ago
And I strongly, strongly disagree with the man. I don't know who makes the logical conclusion of "hm, let's allow the government to permit an entity to obtain adequate arms and ammunition for the purpose of overthrowing the government." Sounds highly illogical to me. That totally won't ever be abused, like every vague law is, by every political party ever.
- lelandfe 4y ago
  Well, most people are not a part of a well-regulated militia. DC v Heller was only just in 2008, decades after Burger's time. Your hard line interpretation in this thread is a pretty recent thing in terms of Supreme Court rulings, and Burger's opening sentence in that quote is accurate.
  - seanw444 4y ago
    You're right, it is recent. And it's a shame it didn't come much sooner. A well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, but that doesn't mean it's the only reason to bear arms. It's almost like they left an oppressive government where only privileged people whom the government trusts were permitted to obtain arms, and they were like "maybe we shouldn't give the government that discerning power again."
    - moolcool 4y ago
      I would say that in an age of social media, and in the context of the US, the _perception_ of a tyrannical government is far more dangerous than an actual tyrannical government. There's no shortage of Americans who somehow consider Biden to be a tyrant, so it would follow that the risk of another January 6 (but worse) is extremely high.
    - lelandfe 4y ago
      > A well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, but that doesn't mean it's the only reason to bear arms Some would argue that even some Framers disagreed with you on this one. Stevens' dissent[0] on DC v Heller was that if the Second Amendment "plainly does not protect the right to use a gun to rob a bank" how can we interpret it to provide protections beyond a well regulated Militia? What's confounding is evidence that the Framers explicitly did not include broad language. Other state's proposals included language around hunting and self-defense, and they did not make it to the final draft. > Madison’s decision to model the Second Amendment on the distinctly military Virginia proposal is therefore revealing, since it is clear that he considered and rejected formulations that would have unambiguously protected civilian uses of firearms [0] PDF: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/07-290P.ZD https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/07-290P.ZD
  - notch656a 4y ago
    >Well, most people are not a part of a well-regulated militia "(a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard." [0] Also bear in mind the second amendment notes the right of PEOPLE to keep and bear arms. If it meant just the militia they would have written it was the militia's right not the people's right. [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246
    - lelandfe 4y ago
      > the second amendment notes the right of PEOPLE to keep and bear arms Your interpretation here is merely one of a few, rather than factual. There have been many Supreme Court justices who did believe the wording gave militias (or "collective") a right. It mostly stems from the opening ("prefatory") clause, and the meaning of the comma separating it from the final ("operative") clause. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Commentary_since_late_20th_century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United... Not sure why you linked that definition of a "militia" – has there ever been a Supreme Court ruling that pushed that narrative, or was this just a fun fact?
      - notch656a 4y ago
        >Not sure why you linked that definition of a "militia" – has there ever been a Supreme Court ruling that pushed that narrative, or was this just a fun fact? I linked it because the US Code literally says almost all able bodied 17-45 y/o males are in an unorganized militia (whether they want to be in it or not). Ergo, if only the people of the militia have a right then 17-45 y/o men have the right to the exclusion of (non-uniform) women etc. The fact that it says "the people" rather than "the militia" have the right is not an "interpretation." It is verbatim. There is nothing left to chance here. If you're deferring to Supreme Court, you know the modern interpretation is that it is the individual right of the people. Also even if it is only to the militia, US code makes literally almost every able body 17-45 year old male members of the militia. It's basically women, children, the older and elderly, and the non-citizens and non-able-bodies that aren't militia.

seanw444 4y ago

And I strongly, strongly disagree with the man. I don't know who makes the logical conclusion of "hm, let's allow the government to permit an entity to obtain adequate arms and ammunition for the purpose of overthrowing the government." Sounds highly illogical to me. That totally won't ever be abused, like every vague law is, by every political party ever.

lelandfe 4y ago
Well, most people are not a part of a well-regulated militia. DC v Heller was only just in 2008, decades after Burger's time. Your hard line interpretation in this thread is a pretty recent thing in terms of Supreme Court rulings, and Burger's opening sentence in that quote is accurate.
- seanw444 4y ago
  You're right, it is recent. And it's a shame it didn't come much sooner. A well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, but that doesn't mean it's the only reason to bear arms. It's almost like they left an oppressive government where only privileged people whom the government trusts were permitted to obtain arms, and they were like "maybe we shouldn't give the government that discerning power again."
  - moolcool 4y ago
    I would say that in an age of social media, and in the context of the US, the _perception_ of a tyrannical government is far more dangerous than an actual tyrannical government. There's no shortage of Americans who somehow consider Biden to be a tyrant, so it would follow that the risk of another January 6 (but worse) is extremely high.
  - lelandfe 4y ago
    > A well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, but that doesn't mean it's the only reason to bear arms Some would argue that even some Framers disagreed with you on this one. Stevens' dissent[0] on DC v Heller was that if the Second Amendment "plainly does not protect the right to use a gun to rob a bank" how can we interpret it to provide protections beyond a well regulated Militia? What's confounding is evidence that the Framers explicitly did not include broad language. Other state's proposals included language around hunting and self-defense, and they did not make it to the final draft. > Madison’s decision to model the Second Amendment on the distinctly military Virginia proposal is therefore revealing, since it is clear that he considered and rejected formulations that would have unambiguously protected civilian uses of firearms [0] PDF: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/07-290P.ZD https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/07-290P.ZD
- notch656a 4y ago
  >Well, most people are not a part of a well-regulated militia "(a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard." [0] Also bear in mind the second amendment notes the right of PEOPLE to keep and bear arms. If it meant just the militia they would have written it was the militia's right not the people's right. [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246
  - lelandfe 4y ago
    > the second amendment notes the right of PEOPLE to keep and bear arms Your interpretation here is merely one of a few, rather than factual. There have been many Supreme Court justices who did believe the wording gave militias (or "collective") a right. It mostly stems from the opening ("prefatory") clause, and the meaning of the comma separating it from the final ("operative") clause. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Commentary_since_late_20th_century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United... Not sure why you linked that definition of a "militia" – has there ever been a Supreme Court ruling that pushed that narrative, or was this just a fun fact?
    - notch656a 4y ago
      >Not sure why you linked that definition of a "militia" – has there ever been a Supreme Court ruling that pushed that narrative, or was this just a fun fact? I linked it because the US Code literally says almost all able bodied 17-45 y/o males are in an unorganized militia (whether they want to be in it or not). Ergo, if only the people of the militia have a right then 17-45 y/o men have the right to the exclusion of (non-uniform) women etc. The fact that it says "the people" rather than "the militia" have the right is not an "interpretation." It is verbatim. There is nothing left to chance here. If you're deferring to Supreme Court, you know the modern interpretation is that it is the individual right of the people. Also even if it is only to the militia, US code makes literally almost every able body 17-45 year old male members of the militia. It's basically women, children, the older and elderly, and the non-citizens and non-able-bodies that aren't militia.