Second Amendment

[freethinker44]

From the Idaho Constitution Article IX. This article is still in effect today.
SECTION 1. PERSONS SUBJECT TO MILITARY DUTY. All able-bodied male persons, residents of this state, between the ages of eighteen and forty-five years, shall be enrolled in the militia, and perform such military duty as may be required by law; but no person having conscientious scruples against bearing arms, shall be compelled to perform such duty in time of peace. Every person claiming such exemption from service, shall, in lieu thereof, pay into the school fund of the county of which he may be a resident, an equivalent in money, the amount and manner of payment to be fixed by law.

Lol, what? There's no way that's enforceable.

 

[Skwim]

I did say "something like," because what followed as an attempt to make it read better, but go ahead and rephrase it yourself, just make sure it retains the same connotation:

Remove the nonessential parenthetical element, "being a necessary stop of a grocery outing," from "Purchasing a loaf of bread, being a necessary stop of a grocery outing, I will never prevent you from crossing the street," and make it read better. Or are you content to let it read

Yes, because that is how nonsensical it would be if one took out the modifying gerund: "being necessary for.." of the second amendment. I do not disagree with you that the nominative absolute ( the noun and the gerund together) clearly indicates a relationship between the two, I disagree with the notion that this is limiting.

Then you don't understand English grammar. And in light of this, there isn't any reason to continue.
Have a good day.

Oh, BTW. Still waiting your answer to the following

For the militia still exists.

Really! There are well regulated militias manned by people using their own weapons? Where?

Never mind. I guess there is such an animal.

Tee Hee!​

 

[esmith]

From the Idaho Constitution Article IX. This article is still in effect today.
SECTION 1. PERSONS SUBJECT TO MILITARY DUTY. All able-bodied male persons, residents of this state, between the ages of eighteen and forty-five years, shall be enrolled in the militia, and perform such military duty as may be required by law; but no person having conscientious scruples against bearing arms, shall be compelled to perform such duty in time of peace. Every person claiming such exemption from service, shall, in lieu thereof, pay into the school fund of the county of which he may be a resident, an equivalent in money, the amount and manner of payment to be fixed by law.

SECTION 2. LEGISLATURE TO PROVIDE FOR ENROLMENT OF MILITIA. The legislature shall provide by law for the enrolment, equipment and discipline of the militia, to conform as nearly as practicable to the regulations for the government of the armies of the United States, and pass such laws to promote volunteer organizations as may afford them effectual encouragement.

SECTION 3. SELECTION AND COMMISSION OF OFFICERS. All militia officers shall be commissioned by the governor, the manner of their selection to be provided by law, and may hold their commissions for such period of time as the legislature may provide.

SECTION 4. PRESERVATION OF RECORDS, BANNERS, AND RELICS. All military records, banners, and relics of the state, except when in lawful use, shall be preserved in the office of the adjutant general as an enduring memorial of the patriotism and valor of the soldiers of Idaho; and it shall be the duty of the legislature to provide by law for the safekeeping of the same.

SECTION 5. NATIONAL AND STATE FLAGS ONLY TO BE CARRIED. All military organizations under the laws of this state shall carry no other device, banner or flag, than that of the United States or the state of Idaho.

SECTION 6. IMPORTATION OF ARMED FORCES PROHIBITED. No armed police force, or detective agency, or armed body of men, shall ever be brought into this state for the suppression of domestic violence except upon the application of the legislature, or the executive, when the legislature can not be convened.

Lol, what? There's no way that's enforceable.

Every hear of martial law? In addition we have a "well regulated militia" and as long as the 2nd Amendment stands those that think they can foster their anti-firearm stance by attempting to read the 2nd Amendment to remove our rights to have firearms do not have a leg to stand on.

Idaho Statute
TITLE 46
MILITIA AND MILITARY AFFAIRS
CHAPTER 1
STATE MILITIA -- ORGANIZATION AND STAFF
46-103. State militia -- Division into classes. The militia of the state of Idaho shall be divided into three (3) classes, to wit:
The national guard, the organized militia, and the unorganized militia. The national guard shall consist of enlisted personnel between the ages of seventeen (17) and sixty-four (64), organized and equipped and armed as provided in the national defense act, and of commissioned officers between the ages of eighteen (18)and sixty-four (64) years, who shall be appointed and commissioned by the governor as commander-in-chief, in conformity with the provisions of the national defense act, the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, and as authorized by the provisions of this act. The organized militia shall include any portion of the unorganized militia called into service by the governor, and not federally recognized. The unorganized militia shall include all of the militia of the state of Idaho not included in the national guard or the organized militia.

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

 

[Curious George]

Then you don't understand English grammar. And in light of this, there isn't any reason to continue.
Have a good day.

Oh, BTW. Still waiting your answer to the following

Never mind. I guess there is such an animal.

Tee Hee!​

Ahh that is probably the likely answer...or you could be wrong.

Since "a well regulated militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is quality English in your book? Yet somehow I do not understand? *sigh*

Sleeping soundly, the man did not hear the burglar. Another example of an absolute that does not limit the main clause. But yes, somehow you think that the absolute need limit? Why? Show me this keen grasp of the English language you possess.

Regarding the militia, why is it difficult to understand that all able people (males in the days the constitution was written) comprise the militia, and if crap really hit the fan, these citizens would be expected to answer the call of their government to act. That many would ignore such a call or do nothing means little. Citizens would group together to help fight if the world ever came to such an event. The likelihood of an event that would require such has grown so small that most cannot even entertain such a scenario. But this hardly matters. This is in large part the motivation behind the second amendment. That said, because the motivation behind the second amendment has waned, does not mean that the government all of a sudden can assume authority where it is explicitly disallowed.

 

[Skwim]

Ahh that is probably the likely answer...or you could be wrong.

Since "a well regulated militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is quality English in your book?

Not at all, and never implied it was. But it is comprehensible English.

Yet somehow I do not understand? *sigh*

Obviously.

 

[Curious George]

Not at all, and never implied it was. But it is comprehensible English.

Obviously.

Lol,

Well thanks for the chat squim.

 

[freethinker44]

Every hear of martial law? In addition we have a "well regulated militia" and as long as the 2nd Amendment stands those that think they can foster their anti-firearm stance by attempting to read the 2nd Amendment to remove our rights to have firearms do not have a leg to stand on.

I see you quoted my post in this, but I'm not sure why as it doesn't appear related to what I said.

For clarity I'll rephrase. There's no way it's legal for them to force all able-bodied males between 18 and 45 into military duty and fine conscientious objectors. The supreme court would immediately smack that down if they tried to enforce it.

Now to address what your post, unless you're Russia or China, anyone that thinks they're going to stand their ground against the US military is delusional. The military will definitely pry their guns from their cold, and very dead hands.

 

[Curious George]

I see you quoted my post in this, but I'm not sure why as it doesn't appear related to what I said.

For clarity I'll rephrase. There's no way it's legal for them to force all able-bodied males between 18 and 45 into military duty and fine conscientious objectors. The supreme court would immediately smack that down if they tried to enforce it.

Now to address what your post, unless you're Russia or China, anyone that thinks they're going to stand their ground against the US military is delusional. The military will definitely pry their guns from their cold, and very dead hands.

Military is different than militia.

 

[esmith]

I see you quoted my post in this, but I'm not sure why as it doesn't appear related to what I said.

For clarity I'll rephrase. There's no way it's legal for them to force all able-bodied males between 18 and 45 into military duty and fine conscientious objectors. The supreme court would immediately smack that down if they tried to enforce it.

Now to address what your post, unless you're Russia or China, anyone that thinks they're going to stand their ground against the US military is delusional. The military will definitely pry their guns from their cold, and very dead hands.

Do you really think that there would be viable government, including the Supreme Court, if a governor of a state had to call up the militia? Although fiction is fiction I suggest you read books that deal with the "what if". Try "One Second After". Why would the US military attempt to confiscate firearms? The only way your suggestion would be viable is if the Constitution was amended and the 2nd Amendment was changed. and to do that it takes the vote of 2/3 of the Senate and House of Representatives followed by ratification by 38 states, or a Constitutional Congress called by 2/3 of the States followed by ratification by 38 states. Do you really think that there are that many liberal states?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Now to address what your post, unless you're Russia or China, anyone that thinks they're going to stand their ground against the US military is delusional. The military will definitely pry their guns from their cold, and very dead hands.

History suggests that most will just give up their guns without resistance. And those that do, they won't stand a chance against the military.

 

[freethinker44]

Do you really think that there would be viable government, including the Supreme Court, if a governor of a state had to call up the militia?

So it is completely irrelevant either way then, since it will never happen.

The only way your suggestion would be viable is if the Constitution was amended and the 2nd Amendment was changed. and to do that it takes the vote of 2/3 of the Senate and House of Representatives followed by ratification by 38 states, or a Constitutional Congress called by 2/3 of the States followed by ratification by 38 states. Do you really think that there are that many liberal states?

Or if the supreme court interprets the 2nd amendment to mean only organized militias have the right. The last one was a 5-4 vote, so you're one judges opinion away from not having the right to bear arms. How does that make you feel? Think about it, if a conservative judge retired or died while a liberal president was in office and a liberal judge is appointed to fill the seat, all it would take is someone to challenge the second amendment and then liberals would have the 5-4 vote.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The last one was a 5-4 vote, so you're one judges opinion away from not having the right to bear arms.

It's scary knowing that that is how pretty much every Supreme Court decision goes. And the next president will probably get to appoint some Supreme Court justices. I'm not a big Hillary supporter, but the justice nominations alone would have me voting for her just so the Republicans can't appoint conservative justices.

 

[esmith]

So it is completely irrelevant either way then, since it will never happen.

Or if the supreme court interprets the 2nd amendment to mean only organized militias have the right. The last one was a 5-4 vote, so you're one judges opinion away from not having the right to bear arms. How does that make you feel? Think about it, if a conservative judge retired or died while a liberal president was in office and a liberal judge is appointed to fill the seat, all it would take is someone to challenge the second amendment and then liberals would have the 5-4 vote.

Idaho has a "organized militia". To change the Constitution you have to amend it and that takes a 2/3 majority of states supporting the amendment.

 

[freethinker44]

To change the Constitution you have to amend it and that takes a 2/3 majority of states supporting the amendment.

Or by a supreme court decision.

 

[esmith]

Or by a supreme court decision.

Where do you get the idea that the Supreme Court can amend the Constitution, liberal dreamworld?

I'm done with this!!!!!!

 

[freethinker44]

Where do you get the idea that the Supreme Court can amend the Constitution, liberal dreamworld?

I'm done with this!!!!!!

They don't have to amend it to change it, they can simply reinterpret what it means. You know that's their job, right? To interpret what the Constitution says? It wouldn't even be that much of a stretch to do it with the second amendment. All they would need to do is say it means only organized militias have the right.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But, while the wording may elaborate on the intent, you still must contend with the clause "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Either way we are left with the same conclusion, that the people specifically disallowed the government authority to infringe upon this right.

But it doesn't say what this right actually is. It just refers (presumably) to whatever degree of arming onesself the Founding Fathers thought was a natural right. What degree is that? They didn't say... at least not in the Bill of Rights.

... and it's quite possible that different Founding Fathers had different ideas about this.

So, as it sits, the government has no authority to do so, unless their reasoning can pass strict scrutiny. If the well regulated militia was a contingent then we would see language akin to that in the necessary and proper clause: language that such as "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" FOR "a well regulated militia." Clearly the forefathers new how to use the preposition "for," But they chose to specifically omit such language. They wanted an armed citizenry, they removed the ability of the government to disarm the people.

I think part of the vagueness of the language comes from the fact that there wasn't one single intent or vision behind it. The text that ended up in the law was the result of negotiation and compromise between many people, and it's quite possible that they left the table with conflicting ideas about how the wording they agreed upon would be interpreted.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I can answer that. The people are the militia. There is no constitutional grant to establish a militia because the militia is the people for whom the constitution was written, the militia is and has always been in existence. We were to have an armed people, who the government could call upon for service in defending against foreign and domestic threats.

Elsewhere in the Constitution, Congress is granted the power to "discipline" the militia. Are you so desperate to keep your guns that you'd insist on a tortured definition of "militia" that ends up handing away other rights?

 

[Curious George]

Elsewhere in the Constitution, Congress is granted the power to "discipline" the militia. Are you so desperate to keep your guns that you'd insist on a tortured definition of "militia" that ends up handing away other rights?

Which other rights?

I would suggest the militia is subject to discipline only when they are acting as the militia. Otherwise they are the people. The people are not subject to this discipline, only the militia. Likewise, the militia is not that which has the right to keep and bear arms but the people. But perhaps I have missed something. Could you elaborate?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Which other rights?

All the rights that you lose when Congress has the power to "discipline" you outside of the judicial system.

I would suggest the militia is subject to discipline only when they are acting as the militia. Otherwise they are the people.

But that section (Article 1, Section 8) differentiates between "the militia" and the part of the militia "employed in the service of the United States":

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States,

Apparently, whatever "the militia" refers to, it's still "the militia" even when it's not in active service.

That article also gives "disciplining the militia" and "governing the militia on active service" (paraphrased) as separate powers of Congress. Presumably, these mean two different things.

The people are not subject to this discipline, only the militia. Likewise, the militia is not that which has the right to keep and bear arms but the people. But perhaps I have missed something. Could you elaborate?

When it comes to the Second Amemdment, you argued that "the militia" equalled "the people". Now, when it comes to Section 1, you're arguing that "the militia" only includes people "when they are acting as the militia"; which is it? Which do you think the Constitution means when it says "militia"?