2nd Amendment
Posted by Overall_Brilliant479@reddit | Firearms | View on Reddit | 29 comments
Has anyone/institution ever argued in any court the weight given to the first four words being as important as the last four words? It seems to me the political right always latch onto the last four words. Has the political left ever made any headway arguing the first four?
BlackSquirrel05@reddit
Yes... But post articles of confederation they didn't define it like they did...
Later the militia act of 1792 (Then later 1795) came about to flush this out further because... Get this. States weren't actually forming, or paying militias in which they wanted... Or showing up for the common defense.
If you read also a lot of state's rules on militias you get a better idea of what they meant... and also who they didn't want armed.
Yup that's correct the OG founders had a whole lot of "No those fucking people can't be armed." to the point I think the likes of Virginia and one or two other states said "Only citizens of Anglo origin can participate."
That means anyone not British and French... none for you.
A lot of those states weren't that specific on whites but for sure banded natives and slaves or slave owners from arming even their own slaves.
So yeah go back to the articles and state's bill of rights on militias and what they meant by "well regulated" and you'll get a better idea. Mostly it meant states provided the logistics and ensured X amount of time for training if you were a citizen.
Also keep in mind in the early days. Citizens were only land owning white guys.
So when people talk about "freedom" back in the day... Eh... Yeah not really. Cause in certain places you could have been German or Irish and they'd have had a problem with you owning firearms or ever being a citizen. (In some states.)
ThePretzul@reddit
The militia was never limited to only citizens. It was specifically designated as EVERY able-bodied man between a set range of ages (18-45). No citizenship required.
The 14th amendment’s equal protections clause would then expand that definition to include women and all ages due to the prohibition on discrimination against individuals based on gender or age.
BlackSquirrel05@reddit
Again depends on the state... And that was only the act in 1792. The earlier ones and the states had different requirements...
That was brought about because things were all over the place... and it was lacking exactly what people are asking. "What the hell does that mean?"
And they for sure didn't allow slaves and others to be in the militia.
ThePretzul@reddit
At the time of the militia act slaves weren’t considered to be people. This issue was similarly resolved with the passage of the 14th amendment, and prior state laws regarding the definition of the militia are still overridden by federal law (the militia act and 14th amendment) for purposes of who is covered by federal legislation protecting rights of any potential militia members.
States have jurisdiction to expand the law within their jurisdiction where federal law has not already laid out explicit protections, but they cannot overrule existing or new federal law that explicitly protects rights. This hierarchy of legal authority is laid out in the Supremacy Clause.
BlackSquirrel05@reddit
Yes they were. 3\5ths compromise and the constitution was ratified years earlier. They counted towards representation in those states... And representation is determined by people population...
Because well it explicitly states who is who right there...
And again I'm bringing up points prior to the Constitution. The AOC had the rules regulating militias far more than the 2nd did... Which that "white male" part was even more restrictive.
And the states/colonies again were far more restrictive than the federal gov't for obvious reasons as they barley wanted a functional federal gov't... Hence all the changes and laws passed a short time or the whole... Constitution thing in the first place... Given it wasn't the first go at a legislative body for the US.
The question is really... Why wasn't the militias clause brought over from the AOC... Given that only later they had to do the exact same thing the AOC laid out...
"What are states supposed to be doing in regards to their responsibility to maintain a militia?"
So my point is... They didn't start out that way. And if people say there were no restrictions... Yes there were. Or else why prohibit slaves and non-whites from owning fire arms even if their owners wanted to arm them? Or again Natives weren't slaves at that time nor were there such things as reservations etc.
DBDude@reddit
There's no real contention here. The only problem is the anti-gun people see the introductory phrase as restrictive so they can pretend the right doesn't exist. It's explanatory, providing context. The founders recognized the individual right to keep and bear arms exists. As said in Cruikshank (1876):
So why the introductory phrase? To show a reason why they are explicitly protecting this right. The right exists without the militia, but the militia can't exist without the right. This structure wasn't unheard of then. Take Rhode Island's initial constitution:
Do you see the introductory phrase as restrictive? I don't. Like with the 2nd Amendment, I see that it's explaining reasoning. But someone against the right can say only "sentiments" that contribute to the "security of freedom" are protected by the right, and all others may be prohibited.
It also says "any person may publish," but the introductory phrase restricts that only to the "press," which of course can be defined by the government to enable censorship. Similarly, although the 2nd Amendment says the right of the people shall not be infringed, people against the right say "people" is restricted by the introductory phrase to "militia."
The restrictive interpretation is obviously ridiculous when we see it in light of freedom of the press, but somehow the idea is popular when it comes to the right to keep and bear arms.
So all the words work in harmony, but only as long as you aren't trying to twist them to achieve an anti-rights agenda.
Overall_Brilliant479@reddit (OP)
Thanks
fireburner80@reddit
They've tried, but a militia is just a group of combat capable individuals and doesn't have to be a government organization. There are a lot of militia groups in the middle east that aren't government employees.
Penn and Teller did a breakdown of the second amendment from their show Bullshit.
The important words aren't the first or last four but the middle FIVE: "the right of the PEOPLE".
"A good and healthy breakfast, being necessary for the execution of a successful day; the right of the people to have and eat food shall not be infringed."
Who has the right to have and eat food...the people or the breakfast?
Stock_Block2130@reddit
This is the entire argument. Substitute any other concept for firearms ownership and the answer becomes obvious. It’s individual freedom (of the People) or dictatorship. And having come from the history of European royalty which made taking a deer from the King’s forest a capital offense, the meaning for the Founders should be obvious.
ThePretzul@reddit
Leftist and liberal politicians are well aware of this fact, they simply don’t care and rely on the propaganda machine to hope that enough useful idiots fail to learn reading comprehension at a third grade level or else they might understand it too.
Stock_Block2130@reddit
I totally agree. But some (lately many?) of them would take it farther. They would argue that the State should have the right to tell you what to drive and whether you’re even “allowed”, what to eat, how to cook your food and heat your house; basically they are full-on Soviet Communism.
ThePretzul@reddit
Yes, individual liberties are by definition at odds with collectivist politics. Because then people might make good/bad choices that lead to different outcomes in life and that would upset the people who voted for collectivist politicians because they wanted other people’s stuff.
Stock_Block2130@reddit
For sure.
Overall_Brilliant479@reddit (OP)
As far as being “brain dead leftist”, the definition does not comport with my political leanings. “Brain dead” may.
I own guns, I bought all of boys Golden boys for their 13 th birthdays and they all own guns. Even my girls do. I’m not anti gun. I was always curious. I’ve been insulted by far better dregs of society. Once again. Thanks to all giving rational answers for a legal brain dead.
Overall_Brilliant479@reddit (OP)
I’m proving myself ignorant I suppose. What about the “ well regulated” part.
Thank to those who provide useful links.
BlackSquirrel05@reddit
It meant that states were to ensure people showed up and trained X amount per year, and then in other instances (Such as the states themselves regulations) meant what the state was supposed to provide... V the citizen.
EG: Tents, camp equipment, logistics like wagons etc. V. Citizens were to show up with a rifle, X amount of ammo and powder.
The state constitutions of the time are more revealing of early gun regulation than the US.
Because they for sure had restrictions back in the day.
Verthias@reddit
Well Regulated means to be kept in a good working order not to be taxed and legislated against. The left argues the latter when it's not possible within the scope of intent of the framers. The first ten amendments were all restrictions against the federal government, not against we the people.
ThePretzul@reddit
During the time of the founding fathers, “Well-regulated = effectively operating”
No matter how many times brain dead leftists like you attempt to twist the language, it does not and never has meant that the militia itself will be heavily over-regulated by government. Evidence for this is the fact that it specifies in the same sentence that the right of the people (anyone in the county) to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
Sianmink@reddit
Only reason to argue that would be to constrain the scope of the amendment, which on even the most basic analysis (and with generous misinterpretation of what 'well regulated' means and who constitutes the 'militia') is prima fascie nonsense.
TX_AG11@reddit
The whole amendment is important, but you have to know how to read and comprehend.
Overall_Brilliant479@reddit (OP)
A well regulated militia
ThePretzul@reddit
Well-regulated = well operating in the time of the founding fathers.
No matter how many times brain dead leftists like you attempt to twist the language, it does not and never has meant that the militia itself will be heavily over-regulated by government.
Interesting_Ad_6420@reddit
It doesn’t mean what you are thinking.
https://constitution.org/1-Constitution/cons/wellregu.htm
justthistwicenomore@reddit
If you haven't already read it, read the majority in Heller, which includes extensive analysis of the whole shebang.
karmareqsrgroupthink@reddit
What good is a supreme court order if there’s no enforcement? Gun bans have been pushed so far beyond this ruling for almost 18 years now.
In reality that case means nothing a scotus is a paper tiger. Until the enforcement part arrives (which it never will)
bolookies@reddit
“…being necessary to the security of a free state…”
Government should be controlled/influenced by the people, but then the government can’t do whatever bullshit they want if that’s the case. They want to downplay the first part.
DumbNTough@reddit
This is a quick AI generated summary which you would have also easily been able to make if you actually gave a shit about this question.
CapnCurt81@reddit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
n1terps@reddit
It's been tried before, but the language is superfluous. The People ARE the militia.