Posted on 10/17/2007 11:48:49 AM PDT by Dr.Syn
Are you saying that the 2A only applies to state militias?
Well, a “right” doesn’t make much sense if it depends on whether the government (fed or state) has selected a person to exercise that right - does it?
In _Miller_, there was absolutely no discussion about whether Mr. Miller was part of a militia of any kind; to the contrary, his weapons possession charge plainly stemmed from criminal activity. If the Supreme Court, and any court along the path of that case, had ANY inkling that the 2ndA had the limitation you refer to, that would have been the first thing used to throw out his appeal. The question addressed at length was not whether Mr. Miller was one of “the people”, but whether the weapon in question had any militia suitability.
In other Supreme Court cases oft recounted (names escape me at this millisecond, you know them), there are plenty of direct and indirect references to the 2ndA applying to a whole lotta people that you put outside the “white male landowner” and “state militia member” limitation.
Yes, that’s the premise which he commits an enormous amount of time, effort and verbiage to promoting.
Well he could save a lot of effort if he would just ask someone. LOL.
...to debate the self-proclaimed FRexpert on all things RKBA...well...that way lies madness Joe.
walk away Joe...just walk away.
;0)
I see your still glossing over the unorganized militia again in the composition descriptions.
I asked your opinion, not the current published sophistry! (You could have just said “No..” ;)
Voting for males came from the tradition of military service granting the vote for non-land owners. We even see the remnants of that today whereby young Mexican men of good character serve in the Armed Forces of the US of A and then become US citizens.
The classes of the militia are --
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."
Correct. But that's what it's referring to.
"and my neighbors and I are quite capable of being "well regulated"
Nice try.
The second amendment protects those individuals and those arms that are associated with a state militia from federal infringement.
The protection of individuals and arms that are not associated with a state militia is provided by the constitutions of each state.
The Constitution _does_ get to define what constitutes a “well-regulated militia”. Those who wrote the 2ndA soon thereafter wrote the Militia Act of 1792, so presumably it reflects what they had in mind. Of late, that was replaced with a new definition that defines able-bodied males 18-45 as part thereof, and implemented it via the Selective Service System to register members thereof and the DCM/CMP to train & equip them at their time & expense. Legalise often meaning something other than common vernacular, the term “unorganized militia” is nonetheless legally a part of the militia, and is demonstrably “regulated” to whatever degree Congress deems “well”.
RP, neither the 2ndA, Constitution, nor supporting law require that the “militia” in question be _owned_ by a state; the state may enact officers and provide some support & direction, but from the Constitution’s point of view there is only one “militia” addressed, not diverse “state militias” which you keep insisting decide who gets to exercise a “right”.
Make that "The Congress _does_ get to define".
So the 2A protects mortar and howitzer weapons but not .22’s.
No, it protects “the people”. The “militia” is a subset thereof. You are unable to show any Constitutional verbiage showing “the people” is “the militia”.
An expert on English grammar and usage seems to disagree with you.
You are correct. I meant to say the protection of that right.
"In _Miller_, there was absolutely no discussion about whether Mr. Miller was part of a militia of any kind"
Correct. The case wasn't about Mr. Miller. The case was really about the weapon itself.
"his weapons possession charge plainly stemmed from criminal activity."
His weapons charge was the criminal activity -- he was not charged with the interstate transportation of a sawed-off shotgun. He was charged with the interstate tranportation of a sawed-off shotgun without a tax stamp.
He claimed that a tax stamp on any weapon was an infringement and therefore unconstitutional.
The "only white land owners had Rights" crap is just another leftist canard that ignores pesky little things like FACTS.
I don't understand "glossing over". The unorganized militia exists. I have no problem with the unorganized militia. I'm simply saying the second amendment doesn't apply to them, that's all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.