Posted on 10/16/2020 6:08:28 PM PDT by ammodotcom
What is the point of the Second Amendment if, according to the SCOTUS, citizens have no inherent, personal or private right to bear arms outside of service in a state-approved militia? Aren’t militia only needed when the state doesn’t approve them?
From The Supreme Court and the Second Amendment: Understanding the Court's Landmark Decisions on Ammo.com:
The next major Supreme Court case about the Second Amendment came a decade after United States v. Cruikshank, and supported its conclusion that states had the power to restrict the right to keep and bear arms.
It started in Illinois, where Herman Presser gathered and trained his fellow German-American industrial workers in military drills, maneuvers and tactics. They called themselves the Instruct and Defend Association. Presser wanted to build a militia to oppose the private security firms like Pinkerton that were often hired by employers to break strikes and intimidate workers.
After Presser and four hundred of his fellow militiamen paraded through Chicago armed with rifles, he was arrested and charged with violating the state's laws against military organizations. Presser argued that the state's law was unconstitutional, as the Second Amendment granted him the right to form and maintain his own "well regulated" militia.
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment it had made in the Cruikshank case: the Second Amendment did not apply to the states and so the states were free to regulate or ban private militias and guns in any way they chose.
The Court also interpreted the Second Amendment only to guarantee a state's right to maintain a "well regulated" militia, but not an individual's right to bear arms. In other words, outside of service in a state-approved militia, citizens had no inherent, personal or private right to bear arms for the purposes of hunting or self-defense.
(Excerpt) Read more at ammo.com ...
The militia- all able-bodied men. . According to US law.
Why would a militia need to be approved by the state?
So they don’t do what colonial militias did and overthrow the state?
Noting that the 14th Amendment (14A) has its share of politically correct interpretations, I don’t know which Supreme Court justices dreamed up the so called “Incorporation of the Bill of Rights,” especially the scope of the 1st and 2nd Amendment (1&2A) with respect to state governments. But the Court (or somebody) got Incorporation Doctrine wrong imo.
More specifically, at least by the time that that the Court decided United States v. Cruikshank, Justice Waite had evidently concluded that 14A did not apply 1&2A to the states. But his conclusion is wrong imo.
The reason that he got it wrong is that the congressional record shows that Rep. John Bingham, the main author of 14A, had read the Bill of Rights, including 1&2A, as main examples of constitutionally enumerated privileges and immunities that 14A apples to the states. He did so after 14A had been ratified.
John Bingham, Congressional Globe. (See 1st & 2nd Amendments (Articles I & II) about in middle of 2nd column of Bingham's clarification.)
So although Justice Waite was correct in saying that Bill of Rights isn't a restriction on ordinary citizens (my wording), he wrongly disagreed with Mr. Bingham imo when he claimed that 14A doesn’t apply 1&2A to the states.
Corrections, insights welcome.
Send "Orange Man Bad" federal and state government desperate Democrats home in November!
Supporting PDJT with a new patriot Congress and state government leaders that will promise to fully support his already excellent work for MAGA and stopping SARS-CoV-2 will effectively give fast-working Trump a "third term" in office imo.
I don’t see any problem with voting Republican ticket for 2020 elections.
Again, insights welcome.
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.