Interpreting the 2A

[Truebeliever]

If the BOR doesn't hold weight over the States, it has no teeth anywhere in government. Bad actors in State government can strip the Rights of the people until there are no Rights left across the country then it wont matter if the fed is in check or not. Those bad actors will control the fed.

It’s changed. After Mapp v Ohio, it applied with the cases that followed.

Again that’s why McDonald was so important after Heller.

I think some reading this are shocked by what they thought was true wasn’t for most of the country’s history.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Again, what is interference. Open carry but banning concealed? A concealed dagger was frowned upon then.

They banned certain weapons before and after the constitution at the state level including laws made by the following fathers.

We aren’t debating an individual right but the limits of it.

Banning concealed-carry interferes with my ability to protect myself properly. Imagine open carrying on a packed subway train full of scoundrels

 

[JaguarJaguarGolf]

All of those quotes do bolster the individual right vs the collective right . You are preaching to the choir on an individual right. But why the words “ well regulated” ? That’s why that comma is so important.

And what exactly was that right recognized as when they wrote it. What was their definition of that right.


First of all. The right of the people to bear arms as defined by the very writers of it was not unlimited arms as some said but rather they had made laws which restricted the use and storage arms before and after they made the admendment. Not disarming people but when, where and who could be armed.

The right of the people to be armed is an individual right but it was not a “suicide pact” either. Meaning they had placed limitations on all those rights.

For example, the first admendment says “congress shall make no law
...abridging the freedom of speech”

Abridge :

1. to reduce or lessen in duration,scope, authority, etc.; diminish;curtail:to abridge a visit; to abridgeone's freedom.

Can’t abridge the freedom of speech but liable laws were made and passed by the framers of the constitution. And laws limititing speech were constitutional under certain circumstances. (Obscenity, regulation of commercial speech , fraud , etc.)


there are limits on the 2nd A well even by their understanding.

A nuke is something that would and should be illegal for the individual to own . Can we agree? And before you say an individual couldn’t do it, a Boy Scout actually did build a breeder nuclear reactor.

But the founders were aware of repeating weapons and no effort was made to ban them. But they had regulated the carrying of certain arms:

“James Madison's proposal for those who violated Virginia's game laws captured the important distinction between civilian and military gun use. In a bill to prevent the killing of deer, Madison proposed that a person who "bear a gun out of his inclosed ground, unless whilst performing military duty" would face penalties of forfeiting their unlawfully killed deer, paying a fine, and being "bound to their good behaviour."88 The language of this statute provides a remarkable window into the way Madison understood the differences between bearing a gun for personal use and bearing arms for the common defense. Additional evidence that the law treated weapons intended for militia use differently than those used outside of a military context may be found in two New Jersey laws that gave the state broad power to disarm disorderly persons and armed assemblies.89

https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bing.com%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dearily%20us%20gun%20laws%20&amp=&qs=n&amp=&form=QBLH&amp=&sp=-1&amp=&pq=earily+us+gun+laws+&amp=&sc=1-19&amp=&sk=&amp=&cvid=D4A87C5B3D1E4EE5BE3D096CEE67FADE&amp=&httpsredir=1&amp=&article=4021&amp=&context=flr&amp=&sei-redir=1#search="earily us gun laws"

“ A variety of laws regulating firearms were already in place during the Founding Era. Militia regulations were the most common form of laws pertaining to firearms. 7 Such laws could be quite intrusive, allowing government not only to keep track of who had firearms, but requiring them to report for a muster or face stiff penalties."' Regulations governing the storage of gun powder were also common."9 States prohibited the use of firearms on certain occasions and in certain locations. 2 °

They had some regulations . The question is where do they start and end. Even the dissent in Heller mentions too.

The question is where the limits are. The common use should be the minimum standard for types of weapons. Standard capacity is common. Semi auto is common.

Perphaps the standard should be more than just common use . Effective combat . Semi auto. An m14 is still effective in semi auto but limit to a 5 round magazine would not be. In the future , maybe armor penetration might be more important so armor piercing ammo might be considered in the near future as legal under that standard.

The founders interpretation of that right that was not be “infringed “ was not much different than those rights that could not be “abridged”. They recognized limitations to them. It’s where that line is the problem. Can a state stop a drunk man with a handgun in his hand from walking down the street. I think we can agree to that. Or maybe a sober man from walking down the street with the gun in his hand because he felt like it- I think some here would say the man could do that under the second admendment.


At least now, it is now recognized as an individual right as opposed to a state right, thanks to the Heller decision

Sorry about the strike out. Having text problems for some reason

 

[JaguarJaguarGolf]

Does the Second Amendment cover armored vehicles?

Plenty of wealthy and powerful people ride around in armored limousines.

 

[GOPerfect]

No

 

[Truebeliever]

Does the Second Amendment cover armored vehicles?

Plenty of wealthy and powerful people ride around in armored limousines.

Yes, they do ride in them.. And I think they are rich enough to keep laws against it.

If they passed a law against it, it would probably be constitutional. It’s technically not “arms”.

 

[Marine Cpl]

But once you mount a gun on it, it becomes a technical and should be protected. It's an armored, mobile gun platform.

 

[Truebeliever]

Banning concealed-carry interferes with my ability to protect myself properly. Imagine open carrying on a packed subway train full of scoundrels

Some state localities did ban concealed carry but said open carry back in the founders day. Kind of a fair warning doctrine thing.

Open carry on a subway would not be advisable if it were legal but transit cops do it everyday. It would put a target on your back for a gun grab but security for the MTA also open carry on the trains and subways.

But don’t worry if open carry became case law , the state would be forced for conceal carry to prevent that seranio from happening.

But once you mount a gun on it, it becomes a technical and should be protected. It's an armored, mobile gun platform.

The right to bear arms was mentioned by Scalia to be “ bear as into be able to carry” and dismissed that one.

But if he didn’t, that would be one of the limitations I mentioned.

 

[Shadow2]

The amendment everyone ignores, I have more then a few rights i plan on retaining regardless of what law comes down the pipe.

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

 

[Marine Cpl]

Some state localities did ban concealed carry but said open carry back in the founders day. Kind of a fair warning doctrine thing.

Open carry on a subway would not be advisable if it were legal but transit cops do it everyday. It would put a target on your back for a gun grab but security for the MTA also open carry on the trains and subways.

But don’t worry if open carry became case law , the state would be forced for conceal carry to prevent that seranio from happening.




The right to bear arms was mentioned by Scalia to be “ bear as into be able to carry” and dismissed that one.

But if he didn’t, that would be one of the limitations I mentioned.

Please don't quote Scalia. People had ships, cannons pulled by horse, ect.

And transit cops have uniforms, radios, backup, and the stigma of not being fucked with since you'll be caught eventually. A regular concealed carrier doesn't have that.

Let me ask you this since you ignored it twice already. If George Washington himself was reincarnated and tried to lead the effort to dispose of this overreaching government whether federal or state, do you think he would be against himself not having modern rifles and concealed carry when going on and about during his attempts to organize a rebellion? Be honest.

 

[nortatoga]

This is a important definition in under standing the second amendment

es·tab·lished
/əˈstabliSHt/
adjective

• 1.having been in existence for a long time and therefore recognized and generally accepted:"the ceremony was an established event in the annual calendar"synonyms:accepted, traditional, orthodox, habitual, confirmed, entrenched, set, fixed, official, settled, dyed-in-the-wool, inveterate, usual, customary, common, normal, general, prevailing, accustomed, familiar, wonted, popular, expected, routine, regular, typical, conventional, mainstream, standard, stock, well known, recognized, acclaimed, esteemed, acknowledged, respected, respectable, famous, prominent, noted, renownedantonyms:unfamiliar, unknown
• 2.(of a church or religion) recognized by the government as the national church or religion.

As there were laws that were established before the BOR's banning the carry of concealed weapons. That the people lived with for a few hundred years. Law abiding people carried openly with no thought of it being an infringement, the infringement was from the scoundrel that did conceal a weapon and caught them off guard. So if you can not see that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms would just naturally be taken as Open Carry at the time. Let me ask this does anyone think that the 2A was to give the scoundrel and highwaymen an advantage? You need to stop thinking how you want it to be today! Yes I to want to carry concealed, that is why I have a CCW License!

 

[Truebeliever]

Please don't quote Scalia. People had ships, cannons pulled by horse, ect.

And transit cops have uniforms, radios, backup, and the stigma of not being fucked with since you'll be caught eventually. A regular concealed carrier doesn't have that.

Let me ask you this since you ignored it twice already. If George Washington himself was reincarnated and tried to lead the effort to dispose of this overreaching government whether federal or state, do you think he would be against himself not having modern rifles and concealed carry when going on and about during his attempts to organize a rebellion? Be honest.

Really.

They had cannons and other things . But did their states regulate them at that time as well or in that time period. They definitely did regulate gunpowder. I don’t know if they did those other instruments of warfare. But I quoted Scilica because he was the most vocal on the court for gun rights. And if he wasn’t backing that, then you can forget the rest of the court.

Transit cops have the stigma to protect them. I KNOW criminals are less afraid of a cop with a gun then they are with a “civilian “ with a gun. Go ask a transit cop how long it is until that backup arrives. Or if their radios even work half the time. I heard their radios have improved but talk to the old timers and see what they say.

As far as George Washington, go look up the whiskey rebellion.

Whiskey Rebellion - Wikipedia

But I can agree that if he wanted an armed rebellion today it would be good to have Apache Helicopters as well as but that’s not going to happen unless major corporations joined.

And yes, the rich did join back then with the biggest, most expensive warfare instruments of the day, war ships but they were state sponsored ( the colonies provisioned and provided for them) . A similar thing would be for the individual states to rebel like they did in the civil war. And even then, there were regulations as to their possession, use under law before and after the conflict.

However a cannon, especially something like a swivel gun would not be an uncommon sight in private hands where an 18 pounder might be uncommon.

This is why the “common” standard was adopted by the court.

And the standard of an effective infantry man were the standard , a semi auto rifle with standard magazines would be that standard. Perfect, no. Effective yes. Which might be the standard the court should have gone with. But that’s a hard and subjective judgment. The common standard as intended is more objective.

 

[nortatoga]

Next up only because it happened in 1803

Marbury v. Madison
LAW CASE
WRITTEN BY:

• Melvin I. Urofsky

See Article History

Marbury v. Madison, legal case in which, on February 24, 1803, the U.S. Supreme Court first declared an act of Congress unconstitutional, thus establishing the doctrine of judicial review. The court’s opinion, written by Chief Justice John Marshall, is considered one of the foundations of U.S. constitutional law.


When is a law Unconstitutional? A law is Constitutional until the Congress or State legislature that wrote it repeals it or the Courts rule it so.

No Courts overruled the ban's on concealed weapons ( if so please post it and prove me wrong!)

 

[Truebeliever]

The intent of the 2A was clearly for the citizens to be the masters of government, and not the other way around.

The only interpretation that makes sense to me is that for a regulation to pass muster, it must apply equally to the government and its agents as it does to each citizen.

Want to outlaw mustard gas, fine as long as the military doesn't have any anymore either. Notice that because the government can't tax itself, no taxes or fees on arms would be permissible. Similarly for permits and licensing.

Want to outlaw concealed carry ? Only of no one in the military or law enforcement is allowed to either.

Want some regulation about storing powder ? Fine as long as it applies to everyone.

See, that’s some progress. Now, banning something from the military or other government force falls under the well regulated militia part as far as the state government is concerned, so it wouldn’t apply. But does every solider get it? Is it general issue? No.

The common standard or the effective standard is what I would argue for.

Are you saying that the United States shouldn’t have nukes if you can’t. I don’t think so

 

[MadScientist]

Really.

They had cannons and other things . But did their states regulate them at that time as well or in that time period. They definitely did regulate gunpowder. I don’t know if they did those other instruments of warfare. But I quoted Scilica because he was the most vocal on the court for gun rights. And if he wasn’t backing that, then you can forget the rest of the court.

Transit cops have the stigma to protect them. I KNOW criminals are less afraid of a cop with a gun then they are with a “civilian “ with a gun. Go ask a transit cop how long it is until that backup arrives. Or if their radios even work half the time. I heard their radios have improved but talk to the old timers and see what they say.

As far as George Washington, go look up the whiskey rebellion.

Whiskey Rebellion - Wikipedia

But I can agree that if he wanted an armed rebellion today it would be good to have Apache Helicopters as well as but that’s not going to happen unless major corporations joined.

And yes, the rich did join back then with the biggest, most expensive warfare instruments of the day, war ships but they were state sponsored ( the colonies provisioned and provided for them) . A similar thing would be for the individual states to rebel like they did in the civil war. And even then, there were regulations as to their possession, use under law before and after the conflict.

However a cannon, especially something like a swivel gun would not be an uncommon sight in private hands where an 18 pounder might be uncommon.

This is why the “common” standard was adopted by the court.

And the standard of an effective infantry man were the standard , a semi auto rifle with standard magazines would be that standard. Perfect, no. Effective yes. Which might be the standard the court should have gone with. But that’s a hard and subjective judgment. The common standard as intended is more objective.

I haven’t seen any evidence of regulation (law) debarring the use of particular arms. Laws back then regulated behavior, activities but not necessarily banned an arm.
For instance, consider in Article I of the constitution, it explicitly grants the right to Congress to issue Writs of Marque. Which is to say it allows a private citizen with a warship and certain heavy armaments to engage in legal piracy, so to speak. It is assumed that merchants would already possess these arms, the writ only allows for the use of them in certain activities. Also consider that to this day it is still totally legal for civilians to possess black powder cannon.
With a cursory understanding of history, how the revolution started, and reading of certain works such as Federalist 29 it’s pretty clear what words like “well-regulated” mean, why weapons prohibitions are clearly unconstitutional, ect.
Why I think the NFA and the Hughes amendment as it pertains to automatic weapons is completely unconstitutional.

 

[Robin]

Federalist No. 29 - Wikipedia

 

[MadScientist]

"Societies exist under three forms sufficiently distinguishable. 1. Without government, as among our Indians. 2. Under governments wherein the will of every one has a just influence, as is the case in England in a slight degree, and in our states in a great one. 3. Under governments of force: as is the case in all other monarchies and in most of the other republics. To have an idea of the curse of existence under these last, they must be seen. It is a government of wolves over sheep. It is a problem, not clear in my mind, that the 1st. condition is not the best. But I believe it to be inconsistent with any great degree of population. The second state has a great deal of good in it. The mass of mankind under that enjoys a precious degree of liberty and happiness. It has it’s evils too: the principal of which is the turbulence to which it is subject. But weigh this against the oppressions of monarchy, and it becomes nothing. Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem. Even this evil is productive of good. It prevents the degeneracy of government, and nourishes a general attention to the public affairs. I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.1 Unsuccesful rebellions indeed generally establish the incroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions, as not to discourage them too much. It is a medecine necessary for the sound health of government." - Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Paris, January 30, 1787

 

[Marine Cpl]

Next up only because it happened in 1803

Marbury v. Madison
LAW CASE
WRITTEN BY:

• Melvin I. Urofsky

See Article History

Marbury v. Madison, legal case in which, on February 24, 1803, the U.S. Supreme Court first declared an act of Congress unconstitutional, thus establishing the doctrine of judicial review. The court’s opinion, written by Chief Justice John Marshall, is considered one of the foundations of U.S. constitutional law.


When is a law Unconstitutional? A law is Constitutional until the Congress or State legislature that wrote it repeals it or the Courts rule it so.

No Courts overruled the ban's on concealed weapons ( if so please post it and prove me wrong!)

This is what you are doing. Tomorrow they ban all handguns. Scotus refuses to look at it. Congress refuses to repeal it.

See! The law is constitutional! Prove me wrong!

Notice the exclamation points.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Really.

They had cannons and other things . But did their states regulate them at that time as well or in that time period. They definitely did regulate gunpowder. I don’t know if they did those other instruments of warfare. But I quoted Scilica because he was the most vocal on the court for gun rights. And if he wasn’t backing that, then you can forget the rest of the court.

Transit cops have the stigma to protect them. I KNOW criminals are less afraid of a cop with a gun then they are with a “civilian “ with a gun. Go ask a transit cop how long it is until that backup arrives. Or if their radios even work half the time. I heard their radios have improved but talk to the old timers and see what they say.

As far as George Washington, go look up the whiskey rebellion.

Whiskey Rebellion - Wikipedia

But I can agree that if he wanted an armed rebellion today it would be good to have Apache Helicopters as well as but that’s not going to happen unless major corporations joined.

And yes, the rich did join back then with the biggest, most expensive warfare instruments of the day, war ships but they were state sponsored ( the colonies provisioned and provided for them) . A similar thing would be for the individual states to rebel like they did in the civil war. And even then, there were regulations as to their possession, use under law before and after the conflict.

However a cannon, especially something like a swivel gun would not be an uncommon sight in private hands where an 18 pounder might be uncommon.

This is why the “common” standard was adopted by the court.

And the standard of an effective infantry man were the standard , a semi auto rifle with standard magazines would be that standard. Perfect, no. Effective yes. Which might be the standard the court should have gone with. But that’s a hard and subjective judgment. The common standard as intended is more objective.

I'm not seeing any explanation if George Washington himself was leading a rebellion today that he would be okay with not having modern rifles and concealed handguns to go out and about through the Whiskey Rebellion example.

 

[nortatoga]

This is what you are doing. Tomorrow they ban all handguns. Scotus refuses to look at it. Congress refuses to repeal it.

See! The law is constitutional! Prove me wrong!

Notice the exclamation points.

Except that pesky little Trojan horse Heller gets in the way of that, Next!!

 

[Marine Cpl]

Except that pesky little Trojan horse Heller gets in the way of that, Next!!

It's an example. Choose any infringement. The Safe Act. You either have a hard time seeing the whole picture or you pick and choose to try to win arguments. The point is just because no one in the government wants to get rid of the law, that doesn't make it constitutional to use for an argument.

Also, if a court rules against the Constitution using bias, it doesn't make it constitutional. It's an abuse of power.

 

[Truebeliever]

I'm not seeing any explanation if George Washington himself was leading a rebellion today that he would be okay with not having modern rifles and concealed handguns to go out and about through the Whiskey Rebellion example.

Hello, we are in agreement. I did say semi auto however. I said the “effective standard”. The amout needed to be an effective infantry. Sorry but by other standards you seem to be proposing, a person could carry a hand grenade on the subway for self defense.

A solider could be effective with a semi auto M14 without full auto or hand grenades. A solider with lever action would not be very effective in most cases.

 

[spat]

See, that’s some progress. Now, banning something from the military or other government force falls under the well regulated militia part as far as the state government is concerned, so it wouldn’t apply. But does every solider get it? Is it general issue? No.

The common standard or the effective standard is what I would argue for.

Are you saying that the United States shouldn’t have nukes if you can’t. I don’t think so

Show me the law that says you can't have nukes now.

There is a lot of paperwork, but nukes are manufactured by a civilian corporation, so civilians *can* have them.

Pantex Plant - Wikipedia

 

[nortatoga]

It's an example. Choose any infringement. The Safe Act. You either have a hard time seeing the whole picture or you pick and choose to try to win arguments. The point is just because no one in the government wants to get rid of the law, that doesn't make it constitutional to use for an argument.

Also, if a court rules against the Constitution using bias, it doesn't make it constitutional. It's an abuse of power.

Just what does this mean? *The point is just because no one in the government wants to get rid of the law,*

This I will agree with that is what the left wants!! But you keep making blanket statements about the Courts being corrupt *Also, if a court rules against the Constitution using bias, it doesn't make it constitutional. It's an abuse of power* Thankfully Trump won and not Clinton!

And I would like to say on the topic of Handguns if you would?

 

[Truebeliever]

Show me the law that says you can't have nukes now.

There is a lot of paperwork, but nukes are manufactured by a civilian corporation, so civilians *can* have them.

Pantex Plant - Wikipedia

Contracted by the feds. Not the same thing. You can have a full auto in NYS by that standard.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Just what does this mean? *The point is just because no one in the government wants to get rid of the law,*

This I will agree with that is what the left wants!! But you keep making blanket statements about the Courts being corrupt *Also, if a court rules against the Constitution using bias, it doesn't make it constitutional. It's an abuse of power* Thankfully Trump won and not Clinton!

And I would like to say on the topic of Handguns if you would?

Corrupt courts are courts that don't do their job like they are supposed to do and uphold the Constitution. That's why I bring it up.

And on the subject of handguns, what is your point? That George Washington if leading a rebellion today would be against concealed carry to protect himself? If you think yes than....

 

[nortatoga]

Corrupt courts are courts that don't do their job like they are supposed to do and uphold the Constitution. That's why I bring it up.

So one side rules the way you think is upholding the Constitution and the other is not, Both sides are corrupt? Got it!!

And on the subject of handguns, what is your point? That George Washington if leading a rebellion today would be against concealed carry to protect himself? If you think yes than....

The Military does not need to carry concealed! And Washington would be a hero (as he was!!) with winning. But had he lost he would have been HANGED!!

 

[Marine Cpl]

The Military does not need to carry concealed! And Washington would be a hero (as he was!!) with winning. But had he lost he would have been HANGED!!

What kind of comment is that? What does the military have to do with carrying concealed? Are you saying that you have to be in the military to do the planning to rise up the citizenry? You can't be a regular citizen going place to place organizing a rebellion with a concealed weapon and guards with concealed weapons making sure you don't get ambushed?

And I don't know if you are aware, many in the military conceal carry when the mission requires it. Guys in Iraq patrolled neighborhoods out of uniform in regular cars concealed carrying.

It's a method of bearing arms that's a valuable tool. Licensing that right is unconstitutional.

You can't compare yesterday's battlefield to today's.

George Washington would lose today and hung if he couldn't conceal carry while organizing.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Hello, we are in agreement. I did say semi auto however. I said the “effective standard”. The amout needed to be an effective infantry. Sorry but by other standards you seem to be proposing, a person could carry a hand grenade on the subway for self defense.

A solider could be effective with a semi auto M14 without full auto or hand grenades. A solider with lever action would not be very effective in most cases.

He wouldn't have the ability to suppress the enemy. That's why the military has an automatic rifleman in each 4 man fire team.

 

[nortatoga]

What kind of comment is that? What does the military have to do with carrying concealed? Are you saying that you have to be in the military to do the planning to rise up the citizenry? You can't be a regular citizen going place to place organizing a rebellion with a concealed weapon and guards with concealed weapons making sure you don't get ambushed?

And I don't know if you are aware, many in the military conceal carry when the mission requires it. Guys in Iraq patrolled neighborhoods out of uniform in regular cars concealed carrying.

It's a method of bearing arms that's a valuable tool. Licensing that right is unconstitutional.

You can't compare yesterday's battlefield to today's.

Are you serious? Was Washington not the General of the Continental Army ??? And not for nothing this was way before the BOR"S!!!! Talk about trying to win an argument!!!