Posted on 11/27/2007 2:58:46 PM PST by neverdem
Yes, the right of the people as members of a Militia. You keep forgetting the first clause.
"Chief Judge Joseph Henry Lumpkin"
So, "the people" of the second amendment are different than "the people" in Article I, Section 2? I know he said that. Since you cited him, I suppose that means you concur?
Two definitions, maybe more, for the same phrase? Hey, why not? It's a living constitution, right? It means what we say it means.
One court. One case. And it was a state court at that. In a state where they had no second amendment protection in their own state constitution.
And HE'S going to tell us what it means.
Actually they chose to be so limited. If something is "common knowledge" they can recognize it without taking evidence or expert testimony.
Since it was only the short barreled shotgun portion of the NFA that was involved, a challenge to the machine gun portions, plus the "ban" contained in the 1986 FOPA, would not require overturning any Supreme Court precedence. Even the short shotgun portion could be challenged by presenting evidence that such are used, and have been for a long time, by either military or federal law enforcement forces (executing the laws of the union is one Constitutional function of the militia, and in fact was the first use by the federal government of state militias under President and CinC George Washington, who actually led them in the field during the Whiskey Rebellion). Giving evidence of police use of short barreled shotguns should not be a problem. Or even some military use, although the military has generally used longer barrels since the invention of repeating shotguns with tubular magazines under the barrel, because of the increased magazine capacity. Police, OTOH, favor the shorter barrel because they often operate or deploy directly from vehicles, where the longer barrel is a hindrance, just as it is for home defenders)
Not that short! Where are you getting your information?
You're either ignorant or a liar. Which is it?
But that ruling has no effect outside of DC. It only firms up the disagreement between the circuits as to the meaning of the second amendments "right of the people".
Yes the SC might F it up, but they are, IMHO, more likely to affirm the DC Circuit court, which ruling would set national precedence.
But then again we can't have the Supreme Court disagreeing with R.P. about the meaning of "the people" in the second amendment, as well as the rest of the bill of rights.
And it says "right of the people", not "right of the people serving a militia".
Get real, you just can't take it when your constant inconsistencies and misinterpretations are pointed out. FWIW you are the ONLY one on this whole site that I know of who believes in the collective theory. It really is a liberal and soon-to-be discredited philosophy.
I believe the Judge (Lumpkin) defined what he meant. See quote above, but the important part for our purposes here was "not militia only".
Oh but you have no problem posting that one Tennessee case on the meaning of "bear". I guess this is another one of those selective moments for you.
True. But I got the impresion that's all the poster was interested in. Second, a U.S. Supreme Court decision may go no farther than that.
"which ruling would set national precedence."
It sure could, couldn't it?
"But then again we can't have the Supreme Court disagreeing with R.P. about the meaning of "the people" in the second amendment, as well as the rest of the bill of rights"
Hey, we can always hope for an activist court, huh? About time they ruled one in our favor. Right on!
Living and breathing, that constitution is.
Unlike Nunn, there are other cases. I bet I can find some juicy 9th Circuit Court references to "keep and bear arms".
Oh my goodness, is that your reading of the text? Let's read it again:
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.
Do you notice the commas in this sentence? That means that we can easily interpret what is being said.
First, we look at the first comma, it seperates the first portion of the sentence from a defining portion.
Why are we talking about militias? Because they are necessary to the security of a free state.
Ok, now that we have that decided, what is the best way to keep a well regulated militia?
The next phrase tells us how. The right of the people to keep and bear arms.
If you don't have an armed citizenry, you don't have a militia. Period.
Since it is important to have a militia, in fact it is necessary to have a militia, you must have people keeping and bearing arms.
The last phrase gives specific instructions on how that is to be handled.
"Shall not be infringed"
That means that it is unconstitutional to infringe upon "the people" being able to keep and bear arms. The reason that "the people" need to be armed is so the free State may enjoy security.
Now how is a militia able to provide security for a free State? Isn't that what the standing military (provided for in Article I, Section 8, clause 8) is for?
Obviously not. This issue of private citizens not having the right to keep and bear arms is after the fact of Article I, Section 8. It is an amendment to the Constitution.
The Constitution, which already allowed the Federal government to raise armies; which already allowed individual States (with the Consent of Congress) to keep troops; was amended to prohibit infringment on individuals keeping and bearing arms precisely because they were not under governmental control.
You keep throwing around the Militia Act of 1792, but the second amendment was ratified in 1791. Militias in 1791, were loosely organized groups of men who, without government say so, organized themselves into military units. An example of this would be the Massachusetts 4th under the command of General Shepard who defended Springfield, MA against Shay and his rebels in 1787.
It was because there were 1200 men who kept and bore arms that Shepard was able to put down Shay's Rebellion.
The founders knew what militias were. They knew that the right of everyone to keep and bear arms was essential to the proper formation of militias.
And to that purpose, they forbid any infringement to that right. Period.
You can't be serious? That court comes closest to defining American communism and if you want to argue your case with sources, which I repeat is of liberal mainstream thought you'd be best advised to use less repulsive ones than that. And btw, I don't doubt your claim however I'm sure Judge Lumpkin isn't the only one who saw it the correct way either.
The Founders didn't want an armed citizenry. They wanted a select Militia. They ended up with a well regulated Militia.
The founders wanted an armed citizenry. Your failure to understand that explains your inconsistency in interpretation. Ask ultra-liberal lawyer Lawrence Tribe what the second amendment means. He will reluctantly tell you; an armed citizenry.
If we get the kind of ruling you want, I expect finding a "well regulated militia" will become as problematic as finding "intrastate commerce".
Do you believe that I have a G-d given right to keep and bear arms? Do you have such a right? Does any person?
You bring up a good point. Exactly who is pushing this to the Supreme Court? I’m sure the NRA isn’t (I’m a member and haven’t heard that it is). Isn’t it the DC city council?
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.