4 ms·

>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 a

>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.
  - lelandfe 4y ago
    > the US Code literally says almost all able bodied 17-45 y/o males are in an unorganized militia The US Code's definition of a word won't affect most judges' perspective on an amendment since the US Code was published about 140 years after the Second Amendment was ratified. It's an interesting footnote but not much more. > If you're deferring to Supreme Court, you know the modern interpretation is that it is the individual right of the people See this op-ed from 6 attorneys general in '92: > 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 https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1992/10/03/its-time-to-pass-the-brady-bill/318af389-6147-4d91-92e2-bf53ff0ab51e/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1992/10/03/i... Really, what you're espousing as factual is utterly the crux of the entire Second Amendment debate, and it wasn't until Emerson in 2001, and the Supreme Court's subsequent ruling in 2008 in Heller, that your view even really had precedent. Before 2001, all federal circuit courts that ruled on the issue had adopted the collective right approach. 21 years is not a lot of time compared to 200 years. That's not to say you're wrong – these are interpretations – but rather that yours is but one interpretation, and case law could change on a dime depending on future court makeups. There's a further interpretation between ours that finds that while individuals do have a right to bear arms, they are permitted to only do so "if needed for military purposes," i.e. as part of a militia. This was one that even Breyer, who just retired, held.
    - notch656a 4y ago
      >The US Code's definition of a word won't affect most judges' perspective on an amendment It's not the amendment that it defines though. It is defining members of a militia. Can the government not assign subjects to a militia? That is what this code does. Are you saying this is an illegal militia? Or not a militia at all? US Judges yield to chevron deference all the time including ATF's interpretations on restriction of 2A, why would they not respect US code to be able to define a militia? The right of "the people" to keep and bear arms is not interpretation. It doesn't say right of the militia it says right of the people. It is not interpretation to note the right was not explicitly assigned to the militia. Re "the people" as collective right: Does the right of the people to be secure in their persons (4th) or to petition their government (1st) not individual rights? Do I have to be a part of the militia or collective to assert 4th and 1st amendment rights?

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.
- lelandfe 4y ago
  > the US Code literally says almost all able bodied 17-45 y/o males are in an unorganized militia The US Code's definition of a word won't affect most judges' perspective on an amendment since the US Code was published about 140 years after the Second Amendment was ratified. It's an interesting footnote but not much more. > If you're deferring to Supreme Court, you know the modern interpretation is that it is the individual right of the people See this op-ed from 6 attorneys general in '92: > 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 https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1992/10/03/its-time-to-pass-the-brady-bill/318af389-6147-4d91-92e2-bf53ff0ab51e/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1992/10/03/i... Really, what you're espousing as factual is utterly the crux of the entire Second Amendment debate, and it wasn't until Emerson in 2001, and the Supreme Court's subsequent ruling in 2008 in Heller, that your view even really had precedent. Before 2001, all federal circuit courts that ruled on the issue had adopted the collective right approach. 21 years is not a lot of time compared to 200 years. That's not to say you're wrong – these are interpretations – but rather that yours is but one interpretation, and case law could change on a dime depending on future court makeups. There's a further interpretation between ours that finds that while individuals do have a right to bear arms, they are permitted to only do so "if needed for military purposes," i.e. as part of a militia. This was one that even Breyer, who just retired, held.
  - notch656a 4y ago
    >The US Code's definition of a word won't affect most judges' perspective on an amendment It's not the amendment that it defines though. It is defining members of a militia. Can the government not assign subjects to a militia? That is what this code does. Are you saying this is an illegal militia? Or not a militia at all? US Judges yield to chevron deference all the time including ATF's interpretations on restriction of 2A, why would they not respect US code to be able to define a militia? The right of "the people" to keep and bear arms is not interpretation. It doesn't say right of the militia it says right of the people. It is not interpretation to note the right was not explicitly assigned to the militia. Re "the people" as collective right: Does the right of the people to be secure in their persons (4th) or to petition their government (1st) not individual rights? Do I have to be a part of the militia or collective to assert 4th and 1st amendment rights?