What if the Second Amendment Were Repealed?

[Revoltingest]

But it's okay to limit the definition of a Militia to terms used back in the day?

View attachment 70406


Perfectly fine to have. For the militia.

I limit based upon function of the word in the day.
This is somewhat different from "definition".
In the day, "militia" included the bulk of males,
who wouldn't have needed to join anything...or
even be aware of this status.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

I limit based upon function of the word in the day.

"At the time of the American Revolutionary War, militias were groups of able-bodied men who protected their towns, colonies, and eventually states"

So.... That would be cops, the National Guard, etc. Groups of able-bodied men, not your average citizen.

"Madison, the eventual author of the Second Amendment, wrote in Federalist 46 of the 'last successful resistance of this country against the British arms.' Here the term 'arms' refers generally to the British invasion and all its weaponry, including cavalry, artillery, and naval power."

I guess I can Constitutionally own a battle ship.

"Expanding on Hamilton's theme of deterrence, Madison then argued for the establishment of a militia of 'half a million of citizens with arms in their hands' "

So... Again not every Tom, Richard and Harry. Madison even limited this Militia to 500,000 citizens.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I notice that you missed my post's 2nd sentence.
Here ya go...
After all, the right to own guns rests
upon the premise that they'd function.

Courts generally see thru attempts to
circumvent civil rights by mischievous means,
eg, cops requiring a person to get a permit
for picketing in a public area. Cops trying to
use a permitting process to stop political speech
runs counter to the 1st Amendment.

Sorry, they are anti-bacon. "Bookem Dano!" And the hair! That is a Joe Dirt Mullet if I have ever seen one. There must be some other serious crimes that she is guilty of.

 

[Curious George]

So what is legally defensible as a "militia" is highly debatable, yet currently is... the National Guard.

this is not true. The militia is currently defined in 10 U.S.C. § 246. Feel free to take a gander.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

this is not true. The militia is currently defined in 10 U.S.C. § 246. Feel free to take a gander.

"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."

You were saying?

Now, you may then say "Ah, but the unorganized militia!" Slow you roll. The unorganized militia is any male US citizen from the ages of 18-45. This is the "Reserve Pool", and is not a part of a well regulated militia. It is the people who can then become militia. So if we're to expand gun ownership (unconstitutionally) to this class of non-militia, anyone over the age of 45 could not own a gun.

 

[Audie]

Meh, its a dangerous item... I abhor the item(I think the world would be better if they all 'poofed' out of existence), though I hate the culture surrounding them as well.

As to the 'normally decent' comment, I'm not sure the problem with it. Mind explaining more?

Meh, there no talking to your attitude

 

[JustGeorge]

Meh, there no talking to your attitude

Didn't know I had one...

I'm genuinely confused.

 

[Curious George]

"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."

You were saying?

I was saying that your statement that the militia is currently the national guard, was incorrect. And you just posted a sentence indicating that I am correct in my assertion.

Now, you may then say "Ah, but the unorganized militia!" Slow you roll. The unorganized militia is any male US citizen from the ages of 18-45. This is the "Reserve Pool", and is not a part of a well regulated militia.

that sounds like speculation to me.

It is the people who can then become militia. So if we're to expand gun ownership (unconstitutionally) to this class of non-militia, anyone over the age of 45 could not own a gun.

No, no no. They are part of the militia as the militia is legally defined. There is no “they can become militia.” The definition is there for you. Your statement about the national guard being The Militia was not correct. The national guard is part of the militia. The militia is 1) all able bodied males that are not excluded and 2) female members of the national guard.

some of one and all of two are organized into the “organized militia” but the organized militia alone does not constitute the militia.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"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."

You were saying?

Now, you may then say "Ah, but the unorganized militia!" Slow you roll. The unorganized militia is any male US citizen from the ages of 18-45. This is the "Reserve Pool", and is not a part of a well regulated militia. It is the people who can then become militia. So if we're to expand gun ownership (unconstitutionally) to this class of non-militia, anyone over the age of 45 could not own a gun.

The Second Amendment does not say or imply that people must be a member of a militia to be armed.. It states that a well regulated (and in this case part of being "well regulated" is being well armed) being necessary. Here let me quote it:

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.

At that time the members of the "militia" brought their own arms. So everyone had to have the right to arms to that they could be a source for the militia. And part of it was that due to how things went in Europe so often that they felt a armed populace was necessary, just in case.

One could legitimately argue that a well regulated (armed is part of being well regulated) militia is no longer necessary. We have survived almost 250 years and the danger time for the democracy is in the past. So one could argue against the Second Amendment on those grounds. But if you are going to get hung up on the militia aspect the clear original intent refutes your argument. And that is what we need to go by. When it came to "the press" almost anyone could make their own newspaper in those days, providing he had the monetary means to buy or hire a press. The press is not just the big news corporations. It can be anyone. And certain social media outlets have made that possible again. I may not agree with quite a few "First Amendment
Auditors" but by the Constitution they are "the press".

The Second Amendment is going to be a major stumbling block for any gun reform.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I was saying that your statement that the militia is currently the national guard, was incorrect. And you just posted a sentence indicating that I am correct in my assertion.


that sounds like speculation to me.


No, no no. They are part of the militia as the militia is legally defined. There is no “they can become militia.” The definition is there for you. Your statement about the national guard being The Militia was not correct. The national guard is part of the militia. The militia is 1) all able bodied males that are not excluded and 2) female members of the national guard.

some of one and all of two are organized into the “organized militia” but the organized militia alone does not constitute the militia.

Yes, one cannot use 21 century definitions for Amendments that were written with 18th century language.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I do believe that the meaning of the word "regulated" has changed.

Completely agree.

Back then a well regulated militia was just a well armed one.

Don't agree. There would have been a paramilitary structure in place. As you go on to say later in your post, these were armed men, but they were also registered and organised, and drilled together.
To what extent they did these things varied greatly (of course) as it really come down to the leadership and experience of each militia group. But I have always read...and continue to read...'well-regulated' as being a hint that the document is speaking to those militia that have some degree of structure (if loose) and drill together...not just rabble with guns. Basically, groups that might actually be impactful in a fight back then.

"In other words, it didn't mean the state was controlling the militia in a certain way, but rather that the militia was prepared to do its duty."

Exactly this.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Yes, one cannot use 21 century definitions for Amendments that were written with 18th century language.

True enough.
A national guard would likely be treated with suspicion by some of the Founding Fathers, rather than being seen as an expression of a well-regulated militia. However, it's equally worth noting that;

1) They were suspicious of standing armies, full stop. Having a full-time professional army in a peace-time situation was seen as a controlling and threatening institution that could be used to repress the people by some.
2) The most important militia forces were state-organised (as in literally organised by individual states) and part of the concept of 'well-regulated' was to encourage discipline and organisation allowing for the state militia's to fight together as a somewhat coherent force if a co-ordinated response was required.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Sounds like a communistic state. Paying people to turn in their neighbors? I changed my mind... it sounds more like the Nazis.

Or Texas abortion laws.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Completely agree.



Don't agree. There would have been a paramilitary structure in place. As you go on to say later in your post, these were armed men, but they were also registered and organised, and drilled together.
To what extent they did these things varied greatly (of course) as it really come down to the leadership and experience of each militia group. But I have always read...and continue to read...'well-regulated' as being a hint that the document is speaking to those militia that have some degree of structure (if loose) and drill together...not just rabble with guns. Basically, groups that might actually be impactful in a fight back then.



Exactly this.

You are right. I should have not said "just a well armed one". But to being well armed was part of having a "well regulated militia". At that time the militia brought their own arms so they needed to be armed before they joined. That was the thought behind that. Though the need of an independent militia has dropped to about zero these days. In fact a well armed militia would be more of a threat to democracy than the lack of one these days.

Times change.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Suppose the Second Amendment were repealed tomorrow. The stars align and Congress, the SCOTUS, and the White House all agree that gun ownership shall no longer be a constitutional right.

What would then happen to the millions of guns currently in possession of American civilians? Would they be retroactively confiscated (which would probably be impossible to enforce reliably), or would they be grandfathered in?

Another solution might be a legal requirement for all firearms to be kept in an armory, possibly private ones.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

I was saying that your statement that the militia is currently the national guard, was incorrect. And you just posted a sentence indicating that I am correct in my assertion.

Interesting, given the segment of the US code literally states that they are members of the National Guard.

that sounds like speculation to me.

It's literally not. If you are a male US citizen between 18 and 45, you are a part of this "unorganized militia". Meaning that you are reserve militia, not a part of the well regulated Militia, but that the Government - either State or Federal - has the right to conscript you into service should the need arise. Unorganized Militia is not strictly covered under the 2nd Amendment.

The Second Amendment is going to be a major stumbling block for any gun reform.

To which the topic of the thread as a whole is paramount, and this quibbling over what makes for a militia or not is really neither here nor there.

A national guard would likely be treated with suspicion by some of the Founding Fathers, rather than being seen as an expression of a well-regulated militia.

Regarded with suspicion, perhaps. But the US National Guard has it's beginning in 1636, well before the Revolutionary War. It was around during the Founding Father's time as the Militia.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But it's okay to limit the definition of a Militia to terms used back in the day?

View attachment 70406


Perfectly fine to have. For the militia.

When it comes to interpreting the Constitution it is best to go by the intent of the writers.

At that time it was thought that a private militia was key to the countries survival. Today I might try to argue that the opposite is true.

That one has to go by original intent does not mean that one needs to be overly literal. The main concern was limiting the threats to the nation. By that reasoning we should be opposing private militias today since they are a bigger threat than their lack would be.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Interesting, given the segment of the US code literally states that they are members of the National Guard.


It's literally not. If you are a male US citizen between 18 and 45, you are a part of this "unorganized militia". Meaning that you are reserve militia, not a part of the well regulated Militia, but that the Government - either State or Federal - has the right to conscript you into service should the need arise. Unorganized Militia is not strictly covered under the 2nd Amendment.


To which the topic of the thread as a whole is paramount, and this quibbling over what makes for a militia or not is really neither here nor there.


Regarded with suspicion, perhaps. But the US National Guard has it's beginning in 1636, well before the Revolutionary War. It was around during the Founding Father's time as the Militia.

Actually it is. If you go by the "militia" argument you will lose since the historical meaning is rather clear. But if one goes by the intent of the Amendment as a whole then today's independent militia can be seen as more of a threat than an aid to democracy. January 6 is a good example.

 

[Curious George]

But I have always read...and continue to read...'well-regulated' as being a hint that the document is speaking to those militia that have some degree of structure (if loose) and drill together...not just rabble with guns. Basically, groups that might actually be impactful in a fight back then.

I think that you are mistaken in your reading. The amendment clearly states the people’s right… shall not be infringed. They very much were promising the federal government would not do anything to prevent the “rabble” from having guns.

as to the militia, they were referred to all able bodied men, which included the rabble with arms. Using regulated to mean armed and capable with those arms fits within usage at the time and is supported by the nations actions.

 

[Curious George]

Interesting, given the segment of the US code literally states that they are members of the National Guard

you are misreading. The “members of the national guard” modifies “female citizens” in that sentence.