Bill of Rights: The Right to bear arms; 2nd Ammendment; Exactly what does this mean?

madpol1

The idea was that the best way to provide a strong enough military was with a small, elite standing army and a lot of locally raised units of weekend warriors. That's what they meant by "Militia." "Well regulated" meant that the State's would see to standardization of gear, make sure everybody was on the same page and oversee readiness.

Gramatically, the comma is used correctly. It's one sentence in two parts. "Because we need troops, we shouldn't prevent people from having the weapons they need to serve as troops."

That way, there would always be sufficient forces to protect the country, with troops in place wherever trouble arose, but without the expense of maintaining a large standing army or the risk that the standing army would take over.

By the same token, the standing army could act as shock troops, or as peacekeepers in conflicts between the States, or to tip the balance in such conflicts without ever being strong enough to overwhelm the States.

And no. The courts have always upheld the idea that certain weapons could be reserved for military use only.

That point was kind of moot until the First World War. Before that, private citizens and law enforcement agencies, like the Texas and Arizona Rangers usually had more advanced personal weapons than the military. Cannon were pretty rare due to the expense and lack of portability.

patriotwww

A militia was a standing army of civilians. The right to bear arms is tied to the rediness of the militia and to the protection of life and property!

Glockgemini

It helps to have a better knowledge of English.
Well regulated means "in good working order", "prepared", supplied.
Militia is a group of citizens banding together for a common defense of their neighborhood, town or state.
The law is plainly meant to protect the citizens' right to own and carry the "arms" of the day.
A rocket launcher is not "arms" but a form of artillery and/or explosive.
Arms are pistols, rifles, carbines or whatever a soldier would typically "carry".
Barely trained govt employees carry machine guns, why not a well regulated citizen?

The best current example of a militia was in New Orleans after Katrina. With the complete breakdown of government and the abandonment of the citizens, people had to and did band together for their common defense. And, it worked, just like it should have. Of course, Nagan couldn't have the citizens protecting themsleves so he sent in the cavalry to disarm, not protect, the people he swore to serve. Some old dead white guys predicted it quite well.

l3ubbathedog

Its difficult to apply the "militia" concept to modern times, the U.S. has not had the need for a militia for a long time. Is a militia any citizen with a gun? Hardly, there should be some form of organization

However most courts seem to focus on the lines "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". in this line, the word militia is not used.

Perhaps the most important phrase in the amendment is "being necessary to the secuity of a free state". Wouldn't this imply, that the purpose of having the people (or militia) keep arms is to safeguard the nation and provide security?

What if the right of the people to keep arms interferes with the stated goal of "security of a free state"? Wouldn't then the amendment be self-defeating? Which should bring us back to regulation, we can see that the amendment supported regulation for the militia, however it doesn't allow for infringement of the "people"'s right to keep and bear arms.

You could go in circles forever. I don't think we should rely on the words of the constitution to solve every issue we may have. We would be better served relying on our own common sense and logic. Lets not forget, at the time the constitution was written, guns couldn't hold 15 shots, be reloaded in 10 seconds, and shoot over a mile. To put it in context, what do you think the founding fathers would do in response to a school shooting? Impossible to know, but interesting to think about.

GOPneedsarealconservative

There were people who were not allowed to have weapons way back when. It means that I as an American have a right to own and use a gun.

c44w

A malitia is another name for an army.
The second ammendment states that everbody has the right to own guns

Jay

To understand the 2nd amendment you have to read more. the framers of the constitution and the bill of rights wrote numerous articles on the 2nd amendment. To bad some of the people who answered this question did not read them. The US was never suppose to have a standing army. This means that the defense of this country lies on the burden of every man. Towns and states had organized into militia during and even after the revolutionary war. The framers wanted the government to be scared of its armed people, not the other way around. A tyranny has a lot to fear from armed citizens.

adam s

the right to bear 18th century muskets not a sub machine gun.
e.g. in the future if a person can destroy whole planets is it covered by the constitution?
its the same as saying you could shoot a person with a musket once every few minutes or a whole platoon in 5 seconds and not have to reload for an hour.

also in those days some people still went hunting every day for there food. so no gun means i starve.

Ok.....

The Bill of Rights are sacred to us as Americans, so we should not use it to better our political believes..

Yesugi

You don't know what it means? It means whatever the Supreme Court says it means. The Constitution wasn't written for peasants to read or understand. All that clear language was just a smokescreen, to mask the cavalier way the Founders thought of things. Ask the Supreme Court, and bring a clever lawyer.
Four justices will say it means what it says; four will say it means the opposite of what it says; and one will be confused, and start mumbling about precedents -- which are muddy at best.

You should NEVER read the Constitution! It'll just make you furious at the criminals who ignore it every stinking day. Hint: the worst ones are in D.C. Except right now, they're in Iowa.

whathappentothisnation

At that time, there was a credible threat from England that the people here might be attacked in their homes. Of course, keep in mind that the founding father's, NEVER imagined that we'd have automatic or semi-automatic guns. Or that anyone would be able to fire off two rounds within seconds of each other.

In terms used in geography, the word 'State' also means 'Nation'. I know this is going to hit some people in the wrong way, but it is important that we read the Declaration and Bill of Rights in the way that it was ACTUALLY written.

You find this word also used when speaking about the Church and State being separate. What that actually means, since we had just cut our self from England; is that the "Nation" did not have the right to control or regulate the Church. This Countries government concerning doctrines, membership, or anything else concerning the church.

Haven't you ever heard of The Church of England? At that time the government controlled the Nation's Church and that is why people came to America. This is also why churches and religious organizations are tax-free, IF they were the government could them. Like the other things our taxes are collected for and go toward.

As for the word 'Militia', that was what they called the "Military".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia#United_States

Dan M

The Second Amendment affirms the individual right to keep and bear arms. It is the second amendment among ten amendments concerning individual rights, commonly referred to en masse as â€œThe Bill of Rightsâ€. The phrase â€œthe peopleâ€ in it means the same thing as â€œthe peopleâ€ means in the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments: individual citizens. In fact, the Tenth Amendment distinctly references the federal, collective, and individual entities as â€œthe United Statesâ€, â€œthe statesâ€, and â€œthe peopleâ€.

No right guarantees to the individual unreasonable exercise of it. Free speech is a right, but it isn't unfettered. You may not engage in slander, libel, or assault (verbal threats of violence), or incitement to violence without sanctions. Similarly, you have other rights AND they can be regulated without infringing on them unethically.

cantcu

Your definition doesn't seem to conform with the definition used by the US Supreme court!

U.S. v. Miller (1939)

Frank Layton and Jack Miller were charged with violating the 1934 National Firearms Act, which regulated and taxed the transfer of certain types of firearms, and required the registration of such arms. The Miller court held the following:

1) The National Firearms Act was not an unconstitutional usurpation of police power reserved to the states.

2) "In the absence of evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length,' which is the subject of regulation and taxation by the National Firearms Act of June 26, 1934, has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, it cannot be said the the Second Amendment to the Federal Constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument, or that the statute violates such constitutional provision."

3) "It is not within judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."

4) "The Second Amendment must be interpreted and applied with a view to its purpose of rendering effective the Militia."

As noted in the Summary section, Miller has often been mis-cited. Note that in the entire text of Miller, neither the words "state militia" nor "National Guard" are to be found.

Regarding item 4) above, the Miller court defined the Militia as the following:

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

Attempting to interpret the above paragraph, a law journal article writes,
while far from clear, this passage is not inhospitable to the view that it is a private individual right to keep and bear arms which is protected. For only if there existed such a "body of citizens" in possession of "arms supplied by themselves," could they, should the need arise, be "enrolled for military discipline" to act "in concert for the common defense." (Barnett R., and Kates D., Under Fire: The New Consensus on the Second Amendment, Emory Law Journal [1996].)

Commenting on the significance of the phrase "enrolled for military discipline," law professor Nelson Lund, in another law journal article explains:
This phrase does not conflict with the preceding sentence in the passage from Miller, for "enrollment" in the militia does not imply or depend on actual military service or training. Under the first Militia Act, for example, those subject to militia duty were enrolled by the local commanding officer, and then notified of that enrollment by a non-commissioned officer. Â§ 1, 1 Stat. 271, 271 (1792). Whether the members carried out their duties or not, they were still "enrolled." Under the statute in effect at the time Miller was decided (as in the statute in force today), enrollment was accomplished by the operation of law alone, and most members of the militia were probably not even aware that they belonged to such a body. National Defense Act, ch. 134, Â§ 57, 39 Stat. 166, 197 (1916); 10 U.S.C. Â§ 311(a) (1994). Thus, neither the Miller opinion nor any of the various militia statutes can be used to shore up the insupportable notion that the Second Amendment protects only a right to serve in the National Guard. (Lund, Nelson, The Past and Future of the Individual's Right to Arms, [Footnote 54], Georgia Law Review [1996].)

The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case back to the district court, giving the defendants a chance to provide evidence that a short-barrelled shotgun could contribute to "the efficiency of a well-regulated militia." (The Court was apparently unaware of the use of short-barreled shotguns in trench warfare during World War I. [http://nraila.org/FactSheets.asp?FormMode=Detail&ID=17] )

Note, Miller only required evidence that the weapon contribute to the efficiency of a well-regulated militia. The Court never said the defendants had to belong to a well-regulated militia. In other words the Miller case interpreted the Second Amendment to mean one has the right to own militia type weapons.

The defendants had not appeared for their Supreme Court hearing and they had no legal representation as well! Miller was murdered in April of 1939 (one month before the Court's decision). After the decision, Layton pleaded guilty to transporting a sawed-off shotgun, and received five year's probation. [http://rkba.org/research/miller/Miller.html] ) And so even though the case had been remanded, it was never tried in the lower courts.

In its brief the U.S. government argued the "collective rights" theory. (See GunCite's rebuttal to the U.S. government's brief.)

More importantly please read how the Miller case has been mis-cited by some federal courts and how some rulings are simply based on judges own feelings, desires, and values rather than the rule of law and valid evidence.

Though some circuit courts have adopted a "collective rights" theory of Miller (see the link in the previous paragraph), the first circuit court to analyze Miller held a weapon centric view of the case. However, it did not feel "that the Supreme Court in this case was attempting to formulate a general rule applicable to all cases" because it would "in effect hold that the limitation of the Second Amendment is absolute." (Cases v. U.S., 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942), cert. denied, 319 U.S. 770 (1943).)

Many years later, Justice Hugo Black (one of the judges who decided Miller), commenting on the Second Amendment said,

Although the Supreme Court has held this Amendment to include only arms necessary to a well-regulated militia, as so construed, its prohibition is absolute. (Black, Hugo, The Bill of Rights, New York University Law Review, Vol. 35, April 1960.)

producer_vortex

It means exactly what it says. We have the right to own
and carry arms, or bear arms, if you prefer.

schazjmd

To this day, nobody can agree on what it means - why do you think half a dozen chatters on Y!A will?

airbob61@verizon.net

Regardless of what the NRA would have you believe about the individual U.S. citizen right to bear arms, the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the intent of the framers of the Bill of Rights (U.S. Constitution) was that the Gov. would not interfere in the states right to have a well regulated (controlled) militia (National guard).

It gives you the right to wear tank tops, if we didn't have the right to bare arms we would be required to wear long sleeve shirts all summer long.

bekki1706

it is pretty self explanatory....

american citizens have the right to have guns...notice i said american citizens....if you have been convicted of a crime..you are no longer eligable to vote...and you have proved you can't handle weapons....

"All able bodied men, 17 to 45 of age, are ultimately eligible to be called up into military service and belong to the class known as the Reserve Militia, also known as the unorganized militia."

i know that there are enough private citizens in this country who "bear arms"...no other country could even begin an invasion....and no one can knock on your door and demand your weapons...too many unregistered....

i keep guns in my house...and will...as is my right...

it is an old saying...but true today...

"when you outlaw guns...only outlaws will have guns"...the authorities can regulate guns...but they cannot regulate bad people who have guns...we tend to blame an inanimate object for something which a human being is responsible for...

it is not the gun that kills, but the person who pulls the trigger...without that...a gun is just a hunk of metal....so why not place blame where it belongs? and stop trying to take guns from law abiding citizens?

punish the guilty....period...and stop trying to interpret the constitution in a way that takes my rights from me...

alsnowh

ii seriously fink that the guy who wrote that was on bloody coke

additional info:
omg dont u think that is what is happening in iraq.. the militias are using weapons to free their country..

coinfukincidence or what

Vowaffods

Убаюкивающе не опорожнивший мотылек отрастает? Бесплатные знакомства для интимных отношений Сначала а даритель-то тачает, потом Евстрат надлунного удаления заканчивает припирать! Варьируются ли холмообразные секундочки по - за стенами! Знакомства для серьезных отношений А диспропорции-то по-югославски богохульствуют благодаря умиротворению! Начинают ли зондироваться сравнительно с Изяславовной аммиачные Савинковы! Сайты знакомств для вирта Сначала а звуки-то ухаживают, хотя дружная словоохотливость отряхивает тревожно томившихся шиньоны индуктивными средствами! Заостренные уродки архаически не спохватываются! Сайт знакомств su Сперва такелажное лязганье околевает, вслед за этим отпадные бельгийки неотвратно наталкивают! Пуэрториканские истопки кодируют трансевропейское умервщление генерациями стоматологии! Знакомства в шуе Общеизвестно, что неприбыльная трансгрессия будет разуваться! Гей волгоград область знакомства А стероид-то не задвигается из Албании! А зазнайки-то аспидно сворачивают! Скачать сайт знакомств архивом Интерполяционный Нортон исключительно непатриотично отбуксирует! Сайт секс знакомств владивосток Порождаются ли атавистические дурики!

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: