Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Call it as you see it or read it and weep.


Rip Snorter

Recommended Posts

very good read , ive always been of the opinion that all gun laws are unconstitutional , its pretty well spelled out there and the second half is what was intended justified by the freedom mentioned in the first half , 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

"Constitutional rights may not be infringed simply because the majority of the people choose that they be." (Westbrook v. Mihaly 2 C3d 756)

 

and

 

"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."

 

: Robert H. Jackson, US Supreme Court Justice West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624

(1943)

 

 

Have you noticed that those who scream about the militia clause being the controlling clause have conniption fits at the thought of a citizens militia?

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I was in college, taking political science, the teacher asked us one time if we could make one change in the Constitution, what would we do.

 

I said that I would delete the first 13 words of the Second amendment.

 

That's the thing that causes all the trouble. "A well-regulated militia" etc etc. The anti-gunners jump on that.

 

But if that first 13 words were gone, the Second amendment would simply say, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". No confusion there. No argument possible. No supreme Court saying that it has to be interpreted.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is your Militia Act of 1903 denoting the classes of "Militia" not still in effect?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Alpo said:

But if that first 13 words were gone, the Second amendment would simply say, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". No confusion there. No argument possible. No supreme Court saying that it has to be interpreted.

You have too much faith in "plain language".  I'm certain that some politician, progressive or gun hater could find an issue with the definition of "arms", or with what constitutes an 'infringement".  I'm a big fan of Mr. Justice Jackson, quoted above.

 

LL

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Cold Lake Kid, SASS # 51474 said:

Is your Militia Act of 1903 denoting the classes of "Militia" not still in effect?

According to the U.S. Code it is.  https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246

10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes

(a)

The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b)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.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given the proximity in time of Shays' Rebellion and the Constitutional Convention, I can't help but believe that the 'Well-regulated militia' part of the 2nd amendment was actually a warning that pointed to the possibility that while a state government needed an effective militia for security (especially given the frontier nature of much of the U.S. at the time), it could also use that militia to oppress a population, as much or more so than a federal government could do the same with a standing army. To avoid that, the Founders wanted to protect the rights of individual citizens to bear arms, independent of militia service.

 

Yes, I've read U.S. v. Miller (1939), and have heard the arguments about 'militia' and 'unorganized militia', but in reading Heller (2008), SCOTUS clearly holds that firearms ownership is independent of militia duties, service, eligibility, etc.  Which further bolsters my reading of the 2nd.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The second amendment does not say “government  controlled militia“ which is why:

S.3589 - Preventing Private Paramilitary Activity Act of 2024 And;

H.R.6981 - Preventing Private Paramilitary Activity Act of 2024
Should never make it out of committee.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Cold Lake Kid, SASS # 51474 said:

Is your Militia Act of 1903 denoting the classes of "Militia" not still in 

Curious:  why would a law enacted over a century AFTER the constitution and BOR was enacted have any sway over the amendment? It's either an infringement or not.

 

Our gun laws that restrict ownership or type of weapon are an imposition on an enumerated civil right.

 

Again I state: if you cannot require it to vote it should not apply to arms. ID, training, taxes, restrictions on age after age of majority etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Pat Riot said:

The second amendment does not say “government  controlled militia“ which is why:

S.3589 - Preventing Private Paramilitary Activity Act of 2024 And;

H.R.6981 - Preventing Private Paramilitary Activity Act of 2024
Should never make it out of committee.

 

 

The bills are violations of both 1st and 2nd amendments  — right to peaceably assemble and right to keep and bear arms. Don’t know if it would stand SCOTUS scrutiny (at least with the current court).. 
 

Vaguely-worded enough to say what a political prosecution needs it to say. 
 

As far as coming out of committee — in a just world, a LOT of bills would never have come out of committee. But it’s an election year. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Texas Joker said:

restrictions on age after age of majority etc.

Are you in favor of restrictions on age before the age of majority?

 

Several people, on several different forums, have spoken reminiscently of their first gun. That they bought with lawn mowing money when they were 14.

 

The point being that they had the money so the seller sold them the merchandise. And it should not matter whether it is a loaf of bread or a pocket knife or a television set or a shotgun.

 

The government has decided that 14-year-old kid can buy a loaf of bread. And he can buy a television set. But a pocket knife and a shotgun are evil wicked and dangerous and therefore he has to be of a certain age, and 14 is JUST TOO YOUNG.

 

If I ran a gun store, and this 10 year old kid came in with a handful of money and wanted to buy a pistol, I would tell him to come back with his father. This would be to verify that first that handful of money was actually his money - not something he has stolen out of Mama's purse - and second that his father was aware of and approved of his purchase of the gun.

 

Because the father - or the father and mother together - should make the decisions about what the kids should and should not be able to do. Not the government. It is not the government's business tell me how to raise my kid. It is not the government's business to tell me that my kid cannot watch slasher movies at 1:00 in the morning. It is not the government's business to tell me that my kid can't have wine with the spaghetti dinner when he's eight.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When the Constitution was written 'well-regulated' meant well equipped, not the current meaning of lots of restrictions

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Chantry said:

When the Constitution was written 'well-regulated' meant well equipped, not the current meaning of lots of restrictions

I read somewhere that it also meant the firearms were regulated: properly cared for and hits where it’s aimed. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regulated meant "in good working order." And referred to the militia. It was trained, practiced, reliable. The 2nd was not refining to the arms being regulated, and it did not envision restrictions on its membership.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I expect most on this forum agree with much, if not all, of the opinion expressed in the article linked in the original post.

 

How could we get to that goal from where the US is today?  I don't see a path.

 

 

 

 

Edited by J-BAR #18287
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The SCOTUS just needs to say "Shall not be Infringed" period. But it amazes me that those folks can't even agree on what the Constitution and Bill of Rights state.:angry:

Edited by Eyesa Horg
Otto
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@alpo. Buying a gun is a contract I give you money you give me a thing.

 

Court won't enforce a contract on a person who cannot enter into a contract. I am not in favor of children being able to buy dangerous things.  However if I as a parent choose to allow my minor child to access and use my guns as the parent and adult in the equation I assume responsibility for their actions. So I think we are in agreement on this.

 

The second amendment is a restriction on the government not arms.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Texas Joker said:

 

The second amendment is a restriction on the government not arms.


Not understood by so many;  so easily forgotten by so many others.

 

Thanks.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Texas Joker said:

The second amendment is a restriction on the government not arms.

 

23 hours ago, J-BAR #18287 said:

Not understood by so many;  so easily forgotten by so many others.

 

22 hours ago, Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770 said:

The entire Constitution is a restriction on the government. 

 

I think it would be perfectly constitutional for the Fed in coordination with the States to require every member of the Militia (law abiding adults and probably green card holders) to prove possession of and competence with arms on some regular basis. This does seem to be within the authority of the Fed and the States.

 

On edit: Not to create a gun registry, but to focus on those with no arms or training, to establish conformance with a possession requirement and prove safe handling. Every member!

 

Mommies would squirm...

Edited by John Kloehr
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.