what does the Second Amendment mean?

Mr. Benchley claimed: "As the founding fathers said and the courts have upheld, the second amendment refers to serving in a state militia of the sort that have evolved into the National Guard."

Actually, that's not what the Founders said.

Here is the court's decision in US vs. Miller (1939), which marked the first time a federal gun law every came up for Supreme Court review.
http://tinyurl.com/jysm
In fact, that site has every legal document filed in the Miller case, from the original indictment to the Supreme Court's oft-cited but misunderstood opinion.

Read the opinion and you will notice that neither the term "state milita" nor "National Guard" appears anywhere in the decision. Miller was not charged with having a weapon while not a member of the National Guard, and the decision does not hinge on his membership therein.

See also Dave Kopel's "The Supreme Court’s Thirty-five Other Gun Cases: What the Supreme Court Has Said about the Second Amendment"
http://i2i.org/SuptDocs/Crime/35.htm

I also want to recommend the scholarship by such liberals as Sanford Levinson of the University of Texas, Akhil R. Amar of Yale, and William Van Alstyne of Duke, and Lawrence Tribe of Harvard Law.
Tribe, who some feel is the most influential American Prof. Lawrence Tribe constitutional scholar today, stated, "I've gotten an valanche of angry mail from apparent liberals who said, ‘How could you?'" He responds by stating, "s someone who takes the Constitution seriously, I thought I had a responsibility to see what the Second Amendment says, and how it fits." The 1978 edition of his legal treatise American Constitutional Law gave little attention to the Second Amendment, while his recently revised version, which has caused such a stir, gives far more attention to the belief in the individual right to keep and bear arms. "For Larry Tribe to say that there's more to the Second Amendment than originally thought is very important," commented Drake University law professor Tom Baker.

Check out the writings of journalist Daniel Lazare, who describes his own politics as leftist. "People who now try to read in historical context, in a really honest and intellectually sophisticated way, quite agree. Really a broad concensus is developing, the amendment really does guarantee an individual Right-to-Bear-Arms." He also wrote that "the Founders really did believe in an individual Right-to-Bear-Arms. Every citizen has a right to own a weapon, and in the same sense, has the right to free speech, freedom of worship, whatever..."

Also, check out the writings of Professor Akhil R. Amar, espcially his book, _The Bill of Rights: Creation and Reconstruction_.

"Several modern scholars have read the (second) amendment as protecting only arms bearing in organized 'state militias,' like SWAT teams and National Guard units. ...

"This reading doesn't quite work. The states'-rights reading puts great weight on the word militia, but the word appears only in the amendment's subordinate clause. The ultimate right to keep and bear arms belongs to "the people," not the states. As the language of the Tenth Amendment shows, these two are of course not identical: when the Constitution means 'states,' it says so.

"Thus, as noted above, 'the people' at the core of the Second Amendment are the same people at the heart of the Preamble and the First Amendment. Elbridge Gerry put the point nicely in the First Congress, in language that closely tracked the populist concern about governmental self-dealing at the root of earlier amendments: 'This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government.'

"What's more, the 'militia,' as used in the amendment and in clause 16, had a very different meaning two hundred years ago than in ordinary conversation today. Nowadays, it is quite common to speak loosely of the National Guard as the 'state militia,' but two hundred years ago, any band of paid, semiprofessional, part-time volunteers, like today's Guard, would have been called "a select corps" or " select militia" — and viewed in many quarters as little better than a standing army.

"In 1789, when used without any qualifying adjective, 'the militia' referred to all citizens capable of bearing arms. The seeming tension between the dependent and the main clauses of the Second Amendment thus evaporates on closer inspection — the "militia" is identical to "the people" in the core sense described above. Indeed, the version of the amendment that initially passed the House, only to be stylistically shortened in the Senate, explicitly defined the militia as 'composed of the body of the People.' This is clearly the sense in which ' the militia' is used in clause 16 and throughout The Federalist, in keeping with standard usage confirmed by contemporaneous dictionaries, legal and otherwise. As Tench Coxe wrote in a 1788 Pennsylvania essay, 'Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves?' "

Thus endeth today's reading from professor Amar.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

pack heat everywhere they go.

isn't that what "bear" means?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

who sit around on another website plotting how to disrupt honest discussion.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I decide that these scholars are right over some other buch of scholars what makes you believe that the founding fathers were actually right? What's wrong with changing things as society evolves?

I'd say the U.S constituion whilst a great start is not the be all and end all.

Anyhow, not my problem. I'm British.

"What's wrong with changing things as society evolves?"

We have constitutional mechanisms in place for changing the constitution, and simple judicial fiat is not (or rather, *should* not) be one of them.

See Eugene Volokh, "Whose Right on Second?"
http://tinyurl.com/jzvr

Nearly 3/4 of the American people hold that the Second Amendment guarantees anindividual right to own firearms. 44 of 50 state constitutions guarantee a right to keep and bear arms.

Volokh: "What then do people mean when they say that 'evolving standards' should lead courts to reject the individual rights view of the Second Amendment? Seems to me there's only one meaning: That judges should look not to the Framers, not to the 1868 Ratifiers, not to state constitutions, and not even to polls — but only to what they think is right, or perhaps to what the social class to which they belong (elite urban lawyers) thinks is right. You don't like a constitutional right, your honor? You don't think it makes sense today? No problem! Just evolve it out of existence."

"Nearly 3/4 of the American people hold that the Second Amendment guarantees anindividual right to own firearms".

I suppose a fair few still believe Elvis is alive and well too.

I support a robust debate about what constitutes "inalienable".

if they knew the history of how that fraudulent view was fabricated...

that the National Rifle Association, which is the source of this dishonest propaganda, has NEVER challenged any gun control law anywhere on second amendment grounds, although if any part of this horseshit was true, all gun control laws would be unconstitutional.

That's never as in not ever, anywhere, any time, any how.

They're not shy about rushing to court on other grounds...they were in court the second pResident Turd signed campaign finance reform to try and overturn it on first amendmennt grounds.

What does it say when some blowhards don't put their money where their mouths are?

After 2000, to f---ing DARE and speak like anything the court does is reliable or rational is just a damn joke. Tell you what, let's challenge all sorts of stuff under the 1st Amendment and let SCOTUS take THAT away too. It would all be OK according to you. Right?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

That is some scary shit you just mentioned.

So by your proposal, the rights of citizens could depend on what party is in power. And I imagine once a certain party gets in power, they will damn near outlaw voting to remain in power. That would be the evolution

Why is it that you believe a bunch of guys can make a bunch of statements that everyone must live with for all history and a bunch of later guys cannot do anything about it?

That's the very definition of CONSERVATIVE.

Maybe you had better rethink that.
One of the democratic populous focuses is the protection of our rights.
Funny how certain people around here like to use that term whenever opinions differ from theirs.
That term is a political concept or ideology.
Too many people here attempt to use it as a label and all-powerful weapon to discredit somebody’s opinion.

is exactly what you have done here.

I love a simple post that states volumes

So by your proposal, the rights of citizens could depend on what party is in power. And I imagine once a certain party gets in power, they will damn near outlaw voting to remain in power. That would be the evolution

A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security
of a free state

The security of a free state statement has long been interpreted and included in numerous oaths of office to include both enemies from within and abroad.

You see, the grabbers want us to believe this could never happen, but as you see by comments posted here, the attitudes and beliefs that could spawn a government in contradiction to the one our founding fathers envisioned still exist.

This is were the true definition of “militia” as written in 2D A, and supported in several other documents, is exemplified. The “militia” was the people, armed with their own weapons, and the militia serves several purposes. One of which was to enable the people to prevent a government from gaining power that contradicted the principles on which it was founded.

Think of this way. If the people have no firearms, and the militia has “evolved” into the National Guard controlled by the government, does that not constitute a police state?

If not then why was it considered that in 1776? The only difference was the people had their own firearms, and they raised those firearms against the British Empire, and

This concept has been demonstrated time and time again around the globe.
Many dictators and governments imposed bans on firearms immediately after they obtained power in order to remain in power. A defenseless people cannot oppose a government that is armed.

Now while this sounds far fetched for a country such as the US, it is one of the conceptual reasons for 2d A. No matter where we are in time, the potential for the deterioration of our government exists, and no one can disprove that.

The basic principles of a democracy never change. The evolution of a society argument would be more accurately stated as “lets change our system of government”.
For that very reason, the Bill of Rights as a whole must remain steadfast in it’s original intent for which it was drafted.

The guy who wouldn't let the FBI check to see if any terrorism suspects bought guns?

lied about...

And he could be a zoroastrian for all anyone cares....it still doesn't make him anytthing but a gun industry shill...

"In 1789, when used without any qualifying adjective, 'the militia' referred to all citizens capable of bearing arms."
Gosh, if only the founding Fathers had been wise enough to put in that darrn qualifying adjective when they wrote the second amendment--you know, something like, oh, I don't know..."well regulated?" Hey, wait a minute.....

Such is "scholarship" that impresses those who go gaga over Mary Rosh's "science".

you know something like, hmmm, "the people", which we all know from all other amendments including this term means an individuals right.

But thanks for playing "What's my RKBA fantasy?"

after seeing your reply, you were unable to counter that argument with nothing more than an english lesson.
I'm so ashamed that I failed to live up to your standards.
I'll try harder next time, trust me.

with or without the amendment, I will continue to hold the right of defense of liberty, self, property, family as sacred.

You could scratch the 2nd amendment off the constitution for all I care, I will, and so will millions of Americas, continue to guard my life with potentially deadly means.

I am appalled that some people who visit this board will rather rely on the state to secure their freedoms and deny others to secure thier own. It has given me pause and made me wonder about the composition of the party I love.

So, for me, that's the bottom line. Their are crooks out there who are intent on causing people harm, and as long as they do, I will continue to arm myself, encourage people I know to arm themselves, and teach my loved ones to NOT be victims.

Brian

<SarahBrady> Dont worry Ascroft and Ridge will protect you </SarahBrady>

Starting before the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written.

"I. That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights,
amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property,"
"XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state;" (Pa Constitution, 28 Sept. 1776)

Today 28 states recognize an individual's "Right to Keep and Bear Arms" (RKBA) for defense of self and state: AL, AR, CO, CT, DE, FL, IN, KY, MI, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NM, ND, OK, OR, PA, SD, TX, UT, VT, WA, WV, WI, WY

Five states recognize an individual's RKBA for the "common defense": AR, KS, MA, OH, TN.

Eleven states say RKBA shall not be infringed": AK, GA, HI, ID, IL, LA, ME, NC, RI, SC, VA.

Six states have no RKBA provision: CA, IA, MD, MN, NJ, NY.

It is interesting that three of the states without an RKBA clause; CA, IA, and NJ; all acknowledge that a citizen has the inalienable right to defend self and property. State Constitutions

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
QUOTE
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.
UNQUOTE

IDAHO CONSTITUTION
QUOTE
ARTICLE I DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SECTION 1. INALIENABLE RIGHTS OF MAN. All men are by nature free and
equal, and have certain inalienable rights, amoung which are enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property; pursuing happiness and securing safety.
UNQUOTE

NEW JERSEY CONSTITUTION
QUOTE
ARTICLE I RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES
All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain natural and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.
UNQUOTE

I'm not a victim. Don't plan to be either. You're pretty condescending.

"So, for me, that's the bottom line. Their are crooks out there who are intent on causing people harm, and as long as they do, I will continue to arm myself, encourage people I know to arm themselves, and teach my loved ones to NOT be victims."

As if being armed is the only way to avoid being a victim. There are lots of armed soldiers in Iraq at the moment. People are killing them quite easily.

and don't take my comments about how I feel as condescension.

I wasn't armed for 29 years, then I was carjacked (attempted and failed) and robbed (attempted and failed) on the same weekend.

That opened my eyes very, very wide and I promised that I will never be put into a position where some criminal can have his/her way with me.

So, for me, being armed is not the only way of not being a victim, but it is highly effective. You can do whatever the fuck you want to prevent crime upon yourself, but do not deny others the right to protect themselves the way they want.

Just don't be surprised if that doesn't protect you either.

if that doesn't protect me, it probably won't matter, will it?

I've been here on DU for 2 years now and listened to stories about guns used in crimes, guns used to prevent crimes. I've listened to venemous jabs, quips, insults from both sides.

The bottom line is that I will NOT be a victim again, without having at least the chance to defend myself with whatever means I deem necessary.

And, I will continue to fight those who wish to strip me of my means of defense.

B

The thing I don't get is that you've survived two attempted felonies unarmed. Why the sudden urge to pop criminals?

but...it's better to have and not need than need and not have.

In the carjacking attempt, one of the guys most certainly had a gun (he had his hands in his jacket pockets). It was only good fortune that I had room to get out of there (I ran a red light through traffic to escape).

What if the next time, I do not have the chance to get away?

B

I dunno. It just seems that having a gun seems to offer a sense of security. I'm not convinced that this is anything other than illusory.

B was that you did not plan not to be a victim.
Had you planned not to be, you could have avoided it.
I mean that’s one point used to justify banning firearms?
I'll elaborate on this philosophy;
If you don't plan to be a victim, hence do everything you can to avoid being a victim, you will never be a victim.;)

...that no RKBA enthusiast wants to address WHY the professor is discussing what the term "militia" means without an adjective, since there most certainly IS an adjective modifying that term in the Second Amendment?

Instead we've got much stamping of feet and pouting.

I never mentioned a militia?

Why is professor whozisass discussing what the term milita without a qualifying adjective meant in 1789, when it clearly HAS a qualifying adjective in the second amendment?

Don't plan to be either

I'm sure the hundreds of people here in Houston that will be victims of crime today, wrote it down in their daytimers.

As if being armed is the only way to avoid being a victim.

Yea, you can become an introvert.

There are lots of armed soldiers in Iraq at the moment. People are killing them quite easily.

Feeble attempt to make an applicable point.

"I don't care what anyone says! I donn't care what the law is! I want guns guns guns!"

"Their are crooks out there who are intent on causing people harm"
Yuup...and the corrupt gun industry is happy to keep arming them.

I don't care what "the people" means it only applies to what I want it to. I'm terrified of guns, guns kill people.
People should be able to do whatever they want without being held accountable. Blame the gun!!!!

Yuup...and the grabbers keep making claims they can't prove.

And I'm not the one stamping his feet and announcing he doesn't care what the constitution or the law says.

you can take your quips and jabs and...

"I don't care what anyone says! I donn't care what the law is! I want guns guns guns!"

1) I CERTAINLY do not care what you say. In fact, your temper tantrums are quite humorous.

2) I am 100% within the law.

3) Until the invent the "criminal repellent -now in Super strong prescription strength", a gun is the BEST tool I have to avoid becoming a victim again.

"I don't care what anyone says! I donn't care what the law is! I want guns guns guns!" is all the RKBA argument boils down to.

From the DU Rules:

Do not follow someone into another thread to try to continue a disagreement you had elsewhere. Do not talk negatively about an individual in a thread where they are not participating. Do not start a new discussion thread with the purpose of "calling out" another member or picking a fight with another member.

pmbryant
DU Moderator